[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5BAB925D.1030803@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:06:21 +0800
From: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
To: Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>
CC: <paulus@...ba.org>, <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
<mpe@...erman.id.au>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Move a dereference below a NULL test
On 2018/9/26 21:58, Christophe LEROY wrote:
>
>
> Le 26/09/2018 à 13:46, zhong jiang a écrit :
>> It is safe to move dereference below a NULL test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 5 ++---
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>> index a8f20e5..7f19714 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
>> @@ -401,14 +401,13 @@ static struct cache *cache_lookup_or_instantiate(struct device_node *node,
>> struct cache *cache;
>> cache = cache_lookup_by_node(node);
>> + if (!cache)
>> + cache = cache_do_one_devnode(node, level);
>
> But by doing this, you change the meaning of the following warning. Is that what you want ? In that case the text of the WARN_ONCE() should be changed, because the mismatch is not only on lookup now.
>
Yep, I forget the WARN_ONCE. I think we should just remove it. Thought?
Thanks,
zhong jiang
> Christophe
>
>> WARN_ONCE(cache && cache->level != level,
>> "cache level mismatch on lookup (got %d, expected %d)\n",
>> cache->level, level);
>> - if (!cache)
>> - cache = cache_do_one_devnode(node, level);
>> -
>> return cache;
>> }
>>
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists