[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5B967735.1020001@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:52:53 +0800
From: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
CC: <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: remove unnecessary condition check before kfree
On 2018/9/10 17:52, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 08/09/18 16:18, zhong jiang wrote:
>> kfree has taken null pointer into account. So just remove the
>> condition check before kfree.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/xen/xen-acpi-processor.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/xen-acpi-processor.c b/drivers/xen/xen-acpi-processor.c
>> index fbb9137..7e1d49e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/xen/xen-acpi-processor.c
>> +++ b/drivers/xen/xen-acpi-processor.c
>> @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static int push_pxx_to_hypervisor(struct acpi_processor *_pr)
>> pr_warn("(_PXX): Hypervisor error (%d) for ACPI CPU%u\n",
>> ret, _pr->acpi_id);
>> err_free:
>> - if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dst_states))
>> + if (!IS_ERR(dst_states))
> This is just a change of the condition, not a removal.
>
> I don't think change is worth it.
>
Fine, I just consider the duplication of function. Of course. make sense you have said.
Maybe it will more clear to have the judgement.
Thanks,
zhong jiang
> Juergen
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists