[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1281532297.2067.8.camel@cowboy>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:11:37 -0400
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@....org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd: Remove redundant NULL check upon kfree()
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 15:06 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > jbd: Remove redundant NULL check upon kfree().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@....org>
> > ---
> > fs/jbd/transaction.c | 3 +--
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd/transaction.c b/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> > index 5ae71e7..5e98130 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);
>
> This doesn't seem entirely redundant, as it is optimized (via the
> unlikely() hint) for the opposite case than what kfree() is optimized for
> (kfree() assumes that the pointer is likely non-NULL, while the code above
> assumes that the pointer si likely NULL).
>
Ok, makes sense. I was a bit doubtful about the unlikely(), thanks for
the review.
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists