Hello!Yes, you are right, But first is more readable. That's why I have used.
On 12/02/2017 10:26 PM, Arvind Yadav wrote:
platform_get_irq() and platform_get_resource() can fail here and
we must check its return value.
Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/fjes/fjes_main.c | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/fjes/fjes_main.c b/drivers/net/fjes/fjes_main.c
index 750954b..540dd51 100644
--- a/drivers/net/fjes/fjes_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/fjes/fjes_main.c
@@ -1265,9 +1265,19 @@ static int fjes_probe(struct platform_device *plat_dev)
adapter->interrupt_watch_enable = false;
res = platform_get_resource(plat_dev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
+ if (!res) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto err_free_netdev;
+ }
+
hw->hw_res.start = res->start;
hw->hw_res.size = resource_size(res);
hw->hw_res.irq = platform_get_irq(plat_dev, 0);
+ if (hw->hw_res.irq <= 0) {
This function no longer returns 0 on error, no need to check for <= 0.
+ err = hw->hw_res.irq ? hw->hw_res.irq : -ENODEV;
+ goto err_free_netdev;
gcc allows a shorter way to write that.
err = hw->hw_res.irq ?: -ENODEV;
Thanks,
+ }
+
err = fjes_hw_init(&adapter->hw);
if (err)
goto err_free_netdev;
MBR, Sergei