Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:31:21 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-xilinx: Check return value of of_property_read_u32 | From | Michal Simek <> |
| |
On 6/28/22 14:27, Linus Walleij wrote: > CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 8:26 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: >> On 6/17/22 18:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 7:20 AM Srinivas Neeli >>> <srinivas.neeli@xilinx.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> In five different instances the return value of "of_property_read_u32" >>>> API was neither captured nor checked. >>>> >>>> Fixed it by capturing the return value and then checking for any error. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@xilinx.com> >>>> Addresses-Coverity: "check_return" >>> >>> I think the best course of action here is to go and fix Coverity while >>> marking these as false positives. >>> >>> To the idea of castings -- this is not good style and (many?) >>> maintainers in kernel do not accept such "workaround" for fixing >>> broken tool. >> >> Let's wait for Linus what he will say about it. >> I can't see nothing wrong about declaring that I am intentionally ignoring >> return code. > > I don't think this patch should be applied. > > The problem with static analysis is that such tools have no feeling > for context at all, and in this case the context makes it pretty > clear why it is safe to ignore these return values. > > But we need to adopt the tool to the code not adopt the code to > the tool.
ok. No problem. Thanks for discussion.
Thanks, Michal
| |