# Re: \[PATCH 4/8\] Grow: Grow\_addbitmap(): Add check to quiet down static code checkers

- From: Jes Sorensen \<hidden\>
- Date: 2016-03-10 16:40:35 
- List: linux-raid
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-raid/2016/03/6631754
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-raid/2016/03/6631754/t.md

```text
NeilBrown [ref] writes:
> On Thu, Mar 10 2016, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
>> Guoqing Jiang [ref] writes:
>>> On 03/09/2016 01:30 AM, Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com wrote:
>>>> @@ -297,7 +297,14 @@ int Grow_addbitmap(char *devname, int fd, struct context *c, struct shape *s)
>>>>   			"  between different architectures.  Consider upgrading the Linux kernel.\n");
>>>>   	}
>>>>   -	if (s->bitmap_file && strcmp(s->bitmap_file, "clustered") ==
>>>> 0)
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * We only ever get called if s->bitmap_file is != NULL, so this check
>>>> +	 * is just here to quiet down static code checkers.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (!s->bitmap_file)
>>>> +		return 1;
>>>
>>> Is it really need to make all static code checkers happy? ;-)
>>> Otherwise, I would prefer remove above check.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I am fine with the changes.
>>
>> We had a check in one place, but not in the remaining places. I just
>> made it more consistent.
>
> I wonder if maybe the checker was only complaining because the code
> was inconsistent.  i.e. if we just got rid of the existing test on
> s->bitmap_file, maybe that would make the checker happy.  It would be
> interesting to experiment even if you ultimately decide to leave the
> new test there.

I went back and checked the scan logs and it basically complained about
all the cases that didn't check the validity of s->bitmap_file. I think
it's safer to just have the one check at the top, even if we expect it
never to be called with an invalid pointer.

Cheers,
Jes
```