On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:36:22PM +0100, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: > There is otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference. > > Was largely found by using a static code analysis program called cppcheck. > > Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist(a)spectrumdigital.se&gt; > --- > .../lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c | 20 +++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c > index 61e04af..4a7891a 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c > @@ -1897,17 +1897,15 @@ int lprocfs_write_frac_u64_helper(const char *buffer, unsigned long count, > } > > units = 1; > - switch (*end) { > - case 'p': case 'P': > - units <<= 10; > - case 't': case 'T': > - units <<= 10; > - case 'g': case 'G': > - units <<= 10; > - case 'm': case 'M': > - units <<= 10; > - case 'k': case 'K': > - units <<= 10; > + if (end) { > + switch (*end) { > + case 'p': case 'P': > + case 't': case 'T': > + case 'g': case 'G': > + case 'm': case 'M': > + case 'k': case 'K': > + units <<= 10; > + } You know you just changed the logic in the code, right? Why? Have you tested this? greg k-h