Hi Takashi,
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:52:59 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:55:05 +0200,
Jean Delvare wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:15:49 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Yes, indeed I prefer NULL check because the user can know the error
at the right place. I share your
At Sun, 4 Oct 2009 11:35:21 +0200,
Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Takashi,
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:52:59 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:55:05 +0200,
Jean Delvare wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:15:49 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Yes, indeed I prefer NULL check because
At Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:55:05 +0200,
Jean Delvare wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:15:49 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Yes, indeed I prefer NULL check because the user can know the error
at the right place. I share your concern about the code addition,
though :)
I already made a patch
If i2c device probing fails, then there is no driver to dereference
after calling i2c_new_device(). Stop assuming that probing will always
succeed, to avoid NULL pointer dereferences. We have an easier access
to the driver anyway.
Reported-by: Tim Shepard s...@alum.mit.edu
Signed-off-by: Jean
At Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:25:42 +0200,
Jean Delvare wrote:
If i2c device probing fails, then there is no driver to dereference
after calling i2c_new_device(). Stop assuming that probing will always
succeed, to avoid NULL pointer dereferences. We have an easier access
to the driver anyway.
Hi Takashi,
Thanks for the swift reply.
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:13:49 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:25:42 +0200,
Jean Delvare wrote:
If i2c device probing fails, then there is no driver to dereference
after calling i2c_new_device(). Stop assuming that probing will
At Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:00:06 +0200,
Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Takashi,
Thanks for the swift reply.
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:13:49 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:25:42 +0200,
Jean Delvare wrote:
If i2c device probing fails, then there is no driver to dereference
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:05:11 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 17:00 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
The NULL check of client-driver, if followed by a call to
i2c_unregister_device(), would indeed be enough. But unlike the onyx
driver which we know we sometimes load
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:15:49 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Yes, indeed I prefer NULL check because the user can know the error
at the right place. I share your concern about the code addition,
though :)
I already made a patch below, but it's totally untested.
It'd be helpful if someone can do
