From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753361Ab3J3VO5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:14:57 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:6764 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753223Ab3J3VO4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:14:56 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,535,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="401189435" From: "Winkler, Tomas" To: Greg KH CC: "arnd@arndb.de" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: RE: [char-misc-next 1/8] mei: debugfs: validate dev is not null Thread-Topic: [char-misc-next 1/8] mei: debugfs: validate dev is not null Thread-Index: AQHO1P06TyNlQAzZmEa3ng99D0wzFJoM1X5ggABGawCAAJ7BAA== Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:14:44 +0000 Message-ID: <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B1AEFE97C@HASMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1382382343-12066-1-git-send-email-tomas.winkler@intel.com> <1382382343-12066-2-git-send-email-tomas.winkler@intel.com> <20131029231841.GA30410@kroah.com> <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B1AEFB8F5@HASMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com> <20131030132658.GC30447@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20131030132658.GC30447@kroah.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.184.70.13] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 07:16:07AM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:05:36PM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > > > make static analyzer happy > > > > > > That's a stupid analyzer. > > > > > > Sorry, this case can never be true, so don't check for it. Fix your > > > analyzer. > > > > > > > and validate dev argument before dereferencing > > > > > > Again, no need to do so, it's always set properly. > > > > > > sorry, I can't take this. > > > > Fair enough, I didn't like that patch myself now I have other confirmation that > this is stupid. > > This is about the 10th time I have gotten patches that are somehow being > _forced_ by Intel developers to submit, and require me to say they are > stupid and wrong and push back on. > > Someone needs to go stop that Intel code analyzer and push back on them > directly, don't rely on me being the one to do this, it only makes me > grumpy and mad when you all make me do your job on this :( > These tools and BKMs have a lot of false alarms, but sometimes they hit the nail. It was just my personal bad call, to send this patch out. But I really don't know about others, Intel is a big company. Thanks Tomas