All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:08:47 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170824210847.hypvvpzf5pjhppyt@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170824205844.3wkrq6vb7kv45vnv@pd.tnic>

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:58:44PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:55:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > This is just cleanups and doesn't change the behavior.
> 
> You can't return from in the middle of the loop just because the
> allocation fails.
> 

I understand that.

> > The static checker is still going to complain about the error pointer
> > from the loop.
> 
> Please drop this argument about the static checker which you write. I'm
> certainly not changing code just because some tool complains.

Sure.  But the point is the same...  The "p" is an error pointer at the
end of the function.

> 
> > Perhaps we should only set prev_found if the memdup_patch()
> > inside the loop succeeds?
> 
> This not why we set prev_found.

Sure.

regards,
dan carpenter

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 21:08:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170824210847.hypvvpzf5pjhppyt@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170824205844.3wkrq6vb7kv45vnv@pd.tnic>

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:58:44PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:55:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > This is just cleanups and doesn't change the behavior.
> 
> You can't return from in the middle of the loop just because the
> allocation fails.
> 

I understand that.

> > The static checker is still going to complain about the error pointer
> > from the loop.
> 
> Please drop this argument about the static checker which you write. I'm
> certainly not changing code just because some tool complains.

Sure.  But the point is the same...  The "p" is an error pointer at the
end of the function.

> 
> > Perhaps we should only set prev_found if the memdup_patch()
> > inside the loop succeeds?
> 
> This not why we set prev_found.

Sure.

regards,
dan carpenter


  reply	other threads:[~2017-08-24 21:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-22 20:44 [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Silence a static checker warning Dan Carpenter
2017-08-22 21:13 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-24 20:15   ` [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: " Dan Carpenter
2017-08-24 20:15     ` Dan Carpenter
2017-08-24 20:47     ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-24 20:47       ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-24 20:55       ` Dan Carpenter
2017-08-24 20:55         ` Dan Carpenter
2017-08-24 20:58         ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-24 20:58           ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-24 21:08           ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2017-08-24 21:08             ` Dan Carpenter
2017-08-24 21:12             ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-24 21:12               ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-25  9:06               ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-25  9:06                 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-25  9:12                 ` Dan Carpenter
2017-08-25  9:12                   ` Dan Carpenter
2017-08-25  9:14                   ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-25  9:14                     ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-25 10:04                     ` [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Improve microcode patches saving flow Borislav Petkov
2017-08-25 10:04                       ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-25 10:40                       ` walter harms
2017-08-25 10:40                         ` walter harms
2017-08-25 11:41                         ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-25 11:41                           ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-29  9:03                       ` [tip:x86/microcode] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
2017-08-24 21:02       ` [PATCH v2] x86/microcode: Silence a static checker warning Joe Perches
2017-08-24 21:02         ` Joe Perches

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170824210847.hypvvpzf5pjhppyt@mwanda \
    --to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.