lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140814065310.GK11952@brian-ubuntu> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:53:10 -0700 From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com> To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> Cc: Marc Carino <marc.ceeeee@...il.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>, Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] ARM: brcmstb: delete unneeded test before of_node_put On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 07:37:28AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Brian Norris wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 12:07:52PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-bcm/platsmp-brcmstb.c b/arch/arm/mach-bcm/platsmp-brcmstb.c > > > index af780e9..c515ea1 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-bcm/platsmp-brcmstb.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-bcm/platsmp-brcmstb.c > > > @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int __init setup_hifcpubiuctrl_regs(struct device_node *np) > > > if (!syscon_np) { > > > pr_err("can't find phandle %s\n", name); > > > rc = -EINVAL; > > > - goto cleanup; > > > + goto out; > > > } > > > > > > cpubiuctrl_block = of_iomap(syscon_np, 0); > > > @@ -256,9 +256,8 @@ static int __init setup_hifcpubiuctrl_regs(struct device_node *np) > > > } > > > > > > cleanup: > > > - if (syscon_np) > > > - of_node_put(syscon_np); > > > - > > > + of_node_put(syscon_np); > > > +out: > > > > Is there a good reason for this new label? I thought part of the point > > of this semantic patch is that the previous line (of_node_put()) is a > > no-op for NULL arguments. > > Personally, I prefer code to only be executed if it needs to be. It is > helpful from a program analysis point of view, and I think it helps > someone trying to understand the code. > > That is, when I am trying to understand some unknown code, I may look at > the cleanup code and try to figure out why each piece of it is executed. > If some of it is statically known to be irrelevant, it is confusing. > > But I you think the other way around, and would rather have just one label > that contains anything that might ever be useful, then I guess that is a > reasonable point of view as well. Yeah, I personally just look to avoid unnecessary labels. Thanks for explaining your thought process. Brian -- 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