On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:22:21PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Introduce a new EP core layer in order to support endpoint functions in
> linux kernel. This comprises the EPC library (Endpoint Controller Library)
> and EPF library (Endpoint Function Library). EPC library implements
> functions specific to an endpoint controller and EPF library implements
> functions specific to an endpoint function.
> ...
> +/**
> + * pci_epf_linkup() - Notify the function driver that EPC device has
> + * established a connection with the Root Complex.
> + * @epf: the EPF device bound to the EPC device which has established
> + * the connection with the host
> + *
> + * Invoke to notify the function driver that EPC device has established
> + * a connection with the Root Complex.
> + */
> +void pci_epf_linkup(struct pci_epf *epf)
> +{
> + if (!epf->driver)
> + dev_WARN(&epf->dev, "epf device not bound to driver\n");
> +
> + epf->driver->ops->linkup(epf);
I don't understand what's going on here. We warn if epf->driver is
NULL, but the next thing we do is dereference it.
For NULL pointers that are symptoms of Linux defects, I usually prefer
not to check at all so that a dereference generates an oops and we can
debug the problem. For NULL pointers caused by user error, we would
generally return an error that percolates up to the user.
I haven't competely wrapped my head around this endpoint support, but
I assume a NULL pointer here would be caused by user error, not
necessarily a Linux defect. So why would we dereference a NULL
pointer? And what happens when we do? Is this just going to oops an
embedded Linux running inside the endpoint? Is that the correct
behavior?
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
