[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5468B3FD.20409@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:26:05 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
CC: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 1/1] kprobes: Deletion of an unnecessary check
before the function call "module_put"
>> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
>> index 3995f54..f1e7d45 100644
>> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
>> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
>> @@ -1527,8 +1527,7 @@ int register_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
>> out:
>> mutex_unlock(&kprobe_mutex);
>>
>> - if (probed_mod)
>> - module_put(probed_mod);
>> + module_put(probed_mod);
>
> There is an out label, so please check whether the labels could not be
> better positioned to avoid calling module_put when it is not needed.
I do not see refactoring opportunities around jump labels in this use case
for the implementation of the register_kprobe() function so far because
the mutex_unlock() function must be called.
Would you like to suggest any other source code fine-tuning?
Regards,
Markus
--
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