[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid

[Seung-Woo Kim]

Hi Daniel,

On 2013년 07월 01일 23:56, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote:
>>> If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is
>>> meaningless.
>>
>> It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane.
>> As the function is a bool, I would have preferred it returned
>> true/false, but your patch is correct wrt to the rest of the function.
> 
> If we consider passing a NULL raw_edid here a caller-error, shouldn't
> this be a WARN on top? And I concur on the s/0/false/ bikeshed, return
> 0 could be misleading since for errno returning functions that reads
> as success.

Yes, you are right. WARN_ON() is better because there was no crash until
now. and I will also update all return values as false/true instead of 0/1.

> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> 

-- 
Seung-Woo Kim
Samsung Software R&D Center
--