Return-path: Received: from esa4.microchip.iphmx.com ([68.232.154.123]:43840 "EHLO esa4.microchip.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751836AbeA3QKM (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:10:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:40:21 +0530 From: Ajay Singh To: Dan Carpenter CC: kbuild test robot , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/14] staging: wilc1000: rename Handle_Connect() to avoid camelCase Message-ID: <20180130214021.5fdd1aa3@ajaysk-VirtualBox> (sfid-20180130_171325_559304_D33C5B1E) In-Reply-To: <20180130144031.hd5whcs4lwah4qhs@mwanda> References: <1516616547-24654-14-git-send-email-ajay.kathat@microchip.com> <201801300113.VYPjzW6k%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <20180130192949.016ed06a@ajaysk-VirtualBox> <20180130144031.hd5whcs4lwah4qhs@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:40:31 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 07:29:49PM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 02:13:53 +0800 > > kbuild test robot wrote: > > > > > > > > > The patch only change variable names to avoid the camelCase, didn't modify any extra code to dereference memory. > > You are responding to a robot and I think we all understood that this > warning was there before you renamed the variables. > Thanks, got it. > > I think, with the use of shorter variable name now memcpy() is taking 1 line instead of 3 lines. So, now line 937 has different code line(as code is swifted up by few lines).So because of that new potential NULL dereference error is popped up for same existing code. > > The code to validate dynamically allocated memory before access, will be include in separate patch to keep it segregated from variable names changes. > > I will rework on this patch and resend again. > > There is no need to re-work the patch. > Few of the patches for patch series are accepted and submitted to "linux-next". For now, will submit the a new patch series by including the remaining patches (changing commit subject line to avoid confusion from previous patches). > You are right that the NULL check should be added as a separate check. > > regards, > dan carpenter > Regards, Ajay