[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <546D65C6.3030109@hitachi.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:53:42 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kprobes: Deletion of an unnecessary check before
the function call "module_put"
(2014/11/19 16:08), SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> 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);
>>
>> This is OK, but I you request a comment line over there so that
>> code reader can understand it is safe to pass a NULL pointer to
>> module_put().
>
> Do you want that I replace the shown null pointer check by a short
> comment which repeats an expectation for the affected function call?
No, not "want". IMHO, if try_module_get(mod) is done only when mod!=NULL,
we shouldn't call module_put(mod) when mod==NULL (even if it is possible),
because those get/put method must be used as a pair, for the better
understandings.
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
--
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