On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:31:01AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > And that being said, I just tried > > if (pipe->num_inputs > 2) > brx = &vsp1->bru->entity; > else if (pipe->brx && !drm_pipe->force_brx_release) > brx = pipe->brx; > else if (!vsp1->bru->entity.pipe) > brx = &vsp1->bru->entity; > else > brx = &vsp1->brs->entity; > > if (!brx) > return -EINVAL; > > and that didn't help either... Dan, would you have some light to shed on this > problem ?
This is a problem in Smatch. We should be able to go backwards and say that "If we know 'brx' is non-NULL then let's mark &vsp1->brs->entity, vsp1->brs, &vsp1->bru->entity and vsp1->bru all as non-NULL as well". But Smatch doesn't go backwards like that. The information is mostly there to do it, but my instinct is that it's really hard to implement. The other potential problem here is that Smatch stores comparisons and values separately. In other words smatch_comparison.c has all the information about brx == &vsp1->bru->entity and smatch_extra.c has the information about if brx is NULL or non-NULL. They don't really share information very well. regards, dan carpenter
