[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid

Hi Daniel, On 2013? 07? 01? 23:56, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wilson > wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: >>> If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is >>> meaningless. >> >> It would be an error on

[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid

If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is meaningless. Signed-off-by: Seung-Woo Kim Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c

[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: >> If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is >> meaningless. > > It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. > As the function

[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: > If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is > meaningless. It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. As the function is a bool, I would have preferred it returned true/false, but

[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid

If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is meaningless. Signed-off-by: Seung-Woo Kim sw0312@samsung.com Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is meaningless. It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. As the function is a bool, I would have preferred it returned true/false, but your

Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is meaningless. It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. As

Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid

Hi Daniel, On 2013년 07월 01일 23:56, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is meaningless. It would be an