On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:36:07AM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 28/01/2013 09:45, Peter Ujfalusi a écrit :
> >hi Thierry,
> >
> >On 01/26/2013 06:40 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
[...]
> >>>+{
> >>>+ return pwm->chip->can_sleep;
> >>>+}
> >>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_cansleep);
> >>
> >>Would it make sense to check for NULL pointers here? I guess that
> >>passing NULL into the function could be considered a programming error
> >>and an oops would be okay, but in that case there's no point in making
> >>the function return an int. Also see my next comment.
> >
> >While it is unlikely to happen it is better to be safe, something like this
> >will do:
> >
> >return pwm ? pwm->chip->can_sleep : 0;
> >
>
> Ok. And what about:
>
> BUG_ON(pwm == NULL);
> return pwm->chip->can_sleep;I don't think we need that. In case pwm == NULL, dereferencing it will oops anyway. So either we make it safe and return an error code, or we let it oops without explicit BUG_ON(). Thierry
pgpih4jQHIyVm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
