On 6 March 2018 at 13:54, Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:35:11PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
Hi Ville,
On 2 March 2018 at 13:25, Ville Syrjala ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
From: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
Creating a property that doesn't have a name makes no sense to me. Don't allow it.
Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c index bae50e6b819d..fe8627fb7ae6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c @@ -99,10 +99,8 @@ struct drm_property *drm_property_create(struct drm_device *dev, int flags, property->num_values = num_values; INIT_LIST_HEAD(&property->enum_list);
if (name) {strncpy(property->name, name, DRM_PROP_NAME_LEN);property->name[DRM_PROP_NAME_LEN-1] = '\0';}
strncpy(property->name, name, DRM_PROP_NAME_LEN);property->name[DRM_PROP_NAME_LEN-1] = '\0';Shouldn't one also a) error (WARN + return NULL) out when name is NULL and b) update the documentation?
The developer gets the oops. No point in further handholding IMO.
Gut feeling suggests that not everyone tests all their drm_properly_create codepaths. So it's more of user gets an oops. But that's another story ;-)
Didn't look at the docs us usual. Are they saying NULL is OK?
The drm_property_create does not explicitly mention (allow?) NULL. Yet again I don't recall any instances of the docs saying that, using NULL is allowed/valid.
It's been a while since I read through the docs, so they might be updated.
Either way it was a simple fly-by suggestion. -Emil