[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130214161520.GC31269@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:15:20 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] jbd: start_this_handle(): remove kfree()
redundant null check
On Tue 12-02-13 11:23:24, Tim Gardner wrote:
> smatch analysis:
>
> fs/jbd/transaction.c:236 start_this_handle() info: redundant null
> check on new_transaction calling kfree()
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>
> ---
> fs/jbd/transaction.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/jbd/transaction.c b/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> index 071d690..ee40b4e 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> @@ -232,8 +232,7 @@ repeat_locked:
>
> lock_map_acquire(&handle->h_lockdep_map);
> out:
> - if (unlikely(new_transaction)) /* It's usually NULL */
> - kfree(new_transaction);
> + kfree(new_transaction);
> return ret;
Thanks for the patch but I actually think this is deliberate because
new_transaction is usually NULL while kfree() is optimized for passed
pointer to be usually != NULL. Also we save a function call in the common
case. So I'm for the code to stay as is.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists