On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 11:36 +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 08:57 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > True. It probably doesn't *matter* because the size is zero so the > > firmware is just going to ignore the pointer anyway. Although in that > > case I wonder why we couldn't have just passed NULL. Perhaps we expected > > that some firmware might do some validation on the pointer before > > getting to the size check? > > I doubt that the firmware checks the validity of pci_handle when size is > zero, and I agree it's worth passing NULL to silence the warning (which > is also more explicit that just initialising pci_handle), unless Matthew > knows of a reason we shouldn't do that?
No reason I can think of, and any failure will be pretty immediately obvious. -- Matthew Garrett | [email protected]
