> - Clarity to readers that the pointer is guaranteed to be non-null,

Assumption isn't a guarantee.

> and that a check is redundant (because performance critical context,
> etc.)

Compiler optimises it away usually.

> - Future patches that decide to use this macro can be a signal to
> reviewers to actually check correctness that a pointer is indeed
> invariably non-null

That can pretty easily change in future.

> - Make static analysis more useful by documenting when a certain false
> positive is actually false

Is your case really a false positive?

There is an explicit check for NULL in some other using the

get_node function, most visibly in the macro below.

If we know NULL won't be there, we should add an

assert in code instead of a silent assumption.

Thanks,

Siddh