[alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: wcd934x: Remove some unnecessary NULL checks
Clang warns:
../sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c:1886:11: warning: address of array 'wcd->rx_chs' will always evaluate to 'true' [-Wpointer-bool-conversion] if (wcd->rx_chs) { ~~ ~~~~~^~~~~~ ../sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c:1894:11: warning: address of array 'wcd->tx_chs' will always evaluate to 'true' [-Wpointer-bool-conversion] if (wcd->tx_chs) { ~~ ~~~~~^~~~~~ 2 warnings generated.
Arrays that are in the middle of a struct are never NULL so they don't need a check like this.
Fixes: a61f3b4f476e ("ASoC: wcd934x: add support to wcd9340/wcd9341 codec") Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/854 Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor natechancellor@gmail.com ---
Also, turns out this was fixed in the wcd9335 driver in commit d22b4117538d ("ASoC: wcd9335: remove some unnecessary NULL checks")...
sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c | 20 ++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c index 158e878abd6c..e780ecd554d2 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c @@ -1883,20 +1883,16 @@ static int wcd934x_set_channel_map(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, return -EINVAL; }
- if (wcd->rx_chs) { - wcd->num_rx_port = rx_num; - for (i = 0; i < rx_num; i++) { - wcd->rx_chs[i].ch_num = rx_slot[i]; - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wcd->rx_chs[i].list); - } + wcd->num_rx_port = rx_num; + for (i = 0; i < rx_num; i++) { + wcd->rx_chs[i].ch_num = rx_slot[i]; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wcd->rx_chs[i].list); }
- if (wcd->tx_chs) { - wcd->num_tx_port = tx_num; - for (i = 0; i < tx_num; i++) { - wcd->tx_chs[i].ch_num = tx_slot[i]; - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wcd->tx_chs[i].list); - } + wcd->num_tx_port = tx_num; + for (i = 0; i < tx_num; i++) { + wcd->tx_chs[i].ch_num = tx_slot[i]; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wcd->tx_chs[i].list); }
return 0;
On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:01:44PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
Clang warns:
../sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c:1886:11: warning: address of array 'wcd->rx_chs' will always evaluate to 'true' [-Wpointer-bool-conversion] if (wcd->rx_chs) { ~~ ~~~~~^~~~~~ ../sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c:1894:11: warning: address of array 'wcd->tx_chs' will always evaluate to 'true' [-Wpointer-bool-conversion] if (wcd->tx_chs) { ~~ ~~~~~^~~~~~ 2 warnings generated.
Arrays that are in the middle of a struct are never NULL so they don't need a check like this.
I'm not convincd this is a sensible warning, at the use site a pointer to an array in a struct looks identical to an array embedded in the struct so it's not such a bad idea to check and refactoring of the struct could easily introduce problems.
On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 10:00:39AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:01:44PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
Clang warns:
../sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c:1886:11: warning: address of array 'wcd->rx_chs' will always evaluate to 'true' [-Wpointer-bool-conversion] if (wcd->rx_chs) { ~~ ~~~~~^~~~~~ ../sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c:1894:11: warning: address of array 'wcd->tx_chs' will always evaluate to 'true' [-Wpointer-bool-conversion] if (wcd->tx_chs) { ~~ ~~~~~^~~~~~ 2 warnings generated.
Arrays that are in the middle of a struct are never NULL so they don't need a check like this.
I'm not convincd this is a sensible warning, at the use site a pointer to an array in a struct looks identical to an array embedded in the struct so it's not such a bad idea to check and refactoring of the struct could easily introduce problems.
There have been a few other bugs found with this warning:
9fcf2b3c1c02 ("drm/atmel-hlcdc: check stride values in the first plane") 44d7f1a77d8c ("media: pxa_camera: Fix check for pdev->dev.of_node") 8a72b81e6df5 ("isdn: isdnloop: fix pointer dereference bug")
Other static checkers like smatch will warn about this as well (since I am sure that is how Dan Carpenter found the same issue in the wcd9335 driver). Isn't an antipattern in the kernel to do things "just in case we do something later"? There are plenty of NULL checks removed from the kernel because they do not do anything now.
I'd be fine with changing the check to something else that keeps the same logic but doesn't create a warning; I am not exactly sure what that would be because that is more of a specific driver logic thing, which I am not familiar with.
Cheers, Nathan
On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 12:32:15PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 10:00:39AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
I'm not convincd this is a sensible warning, at the use site a pointer to an array in a struct looks identical to an array embedded in the struct so it's not such a bad idea to check and refactoring of the struct could easily introduce problems.
Other static checkers like smatch will warn about this as well (since I am sure that is how Dan Carpenter found the same issue in the wcd9335 driver). Isn't an antipattern in the kernel to do things "just in case we do something later"? There are plenty of NULL checks removed from the kernel because they do not do anything now.
I'm not convinced it is an antipattern - adding the checks would be a bit silly but with the way C works the warnings feel like false positives. If the compiler were able to warn about missing NULL checks in the case where the thing in the struct is a pointer I'd be a lot happier with this.
I'd be fine with changing the check to something else that keeps the same logic but doesn't create a warning; I am not exactly sure what that would be because that is more of a specific driver logic thing, which I am not familiar with.
I've queued the change to be applied since it's shuts the compiler up but I'm really not convinced the compiler is helping here.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 10:22:38AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 12:32:15PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 10:00:39AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
I'm not convincd this is a sensible warning, at the use site a pointer to an array in a struct looks identical to an array embedded in the struct so it's not such a bad idea to check and refactoring of the struct could easily introduce problems.
Other static checkers like smatch will warn about this as well (since I am sure that is how Dan Carpenter found the same issue in the wcd9335 driver). Isn't an antipattern in the kernel to do things "just in case we do something later"? There are plenty of NULL checks removed from the kernel because they do not do anything now.
I'm not convinced it is an antipattern - adding the checks would be a bit silly but with the way C works the warnings feel like false positives. If the compiler were able to warn about missing NULL checks in the case where the thing in the struct is a pointer I'd be a lot happier with this.
Yes, that would definitely be nice. I am not entirely sure that this is possible with clang due to its architecture but I am far from a clang internal expert.
I'd be fine with changing the check to something else that keeps the same logic but doesn't create a warning; I am not exactly sure what that would be because that is more of a specific driver logic thing, which I am not familiar with.
I've queued the change to be applied since it's shuts the compiler up but I'm really not convinced the compiler is helping here.
Thank you :)
Cheers, Nathan
The patch
ASoC: wcd934x: Remove some unnecessary NULL checks
has been applied to the asoc tree at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git for-5.7
All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.
You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.
If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing patches will not be replaced.
Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying to this mail.
Thanks, Mark
From 918d0aba86ed8c1f4ff7f39e39e5c1b46fff2bc2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Chancellor natechancellor@gmail.com Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 23:01:44 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ASoC: wcd934x: Remove some unnecessary NULL checks
Clang warns:
../sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c:1886:11: warning: address of array 'wcd->rx_chs' will always evaluate to 'true' [-Wpointer-bool-conversion] if (wcd->rx_chs) { ~~ ~~~~~^~~~~~ ../sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c:1894:11: warning: address of array 'wcd->tx_chs' will always evaluate to 'true' [-Wpointer-bool-conversion] if (wcd->tx_chs) { ~~ ~~~~~^~~~~~ 2 warnings generated.
Arrays that are in the middle of a struct are never NULL so they don't need a check like this.
Fixes: a61f3b4f476e ("ASoC: wcd934x: add support to wcd9340/wcd9341 codec") Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/854 Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor natechancellor@gmail.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200204060143.23393-1-natechancellor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org --- sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c | 20 ++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c index 158e878abd6c..e780ecd554d2 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c @@ -1883,20 +1883,16 @@ static int wcd934x_set_channel_map(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, return -EINVAL; }
- if (wcd->rx_chs) { - wcd->num_rx_port = rx_num; - for (i = 0; i < rx_num; i++) { - wcd->rx_chs[i].ch_num = rx_slot[i]; - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wcd->rx_chs[i].list); - } + wcd->num_rx_port = rx_num; + for (i = 0; i < rx_num; i++) { + wcd->rx_chs[i].ch_num = rx_slot[i]; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wcd->rx_chs[i].list); }
- if (wcd->tx_chs) { - wcd->num_tx_port = tx_num; - for (i = 0; i < tx_num; i++) { - wcd->tx_chs[i].ch_num = tx_slot[i]; - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wcd->tx_chs[i].list); - } + wcd->num_tx_port = tx_num; + for (i = 0; i < tx_num; i++) { + wcd->tx_chs[i].ch_num = tx_slot[i]; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wcd->tx_chs[i].list); }
return 0;
participants (2)
-
Mark Brown -
Nathan Chancellor