Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-xilinx: Check return value of of_property_read_u32

[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@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 6/17/22 18:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 7:20 AM Srinivas Neeli
> > > <srinivas.neeli@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 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