[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1411211857590.2433@hadrien>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:59:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: USB: serial: Deletion of an unnecessary check before the function
call "release_firmware"
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/mxuport.c b/drivers/usb/serial/mxuport.c
> >> index ab1d690..3653ec1 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/usb/serial/mxuport.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/serial/mxuport.c
> >> @@ -1101,8 +1101,7 @@ static int mxuport_probe(struct usb_serial *serial,
> >> */
> >> usb_set_serial_data(serial, (void *)id->driver_info);
> >> out:
> >> - if (fw_p)
> >> - release_firmware(fw_p);
> >> + release_firmware(fw_p);
> >
> > I think that the if should stay.
>
> I have got an other opinion.
>
>
> > There were two cases on the allocation, so there should be two cases
> > on the release.
>
> I find that this implementation detail does not really matter for the
> necessity of a null pointer check directly before such a function call.
Conceptually, if it is clear 10 lines above that nothing was allocated,
and there is a fallback to existing data (according to the comment above)
it is strange to be releasing something.
julia
--
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