[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62b33279-9ca9-5970-5336-a8511ce54197@web.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 19:50:35 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>,
Chunming Zhou <David1.Zhou@....com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: drm/amdgpu: remove the redundant null check
> debugfs_remove and kfree has taken the null check in account.
> hence it is unnecessary to check it. Just remove the condition.
How do you think about a wording like the following?
The functions “debugfs_remove” and “kfree” tolerate the passing
of null pointers. Hence it is unnecessary to check such arguments
around the calls. Thus remove the extra condition check at two places.
> No functional change.
I find this information questionable while it is partly reasonable
according to the shown software refactoring.
Can a subject like “[PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Remove two redundant
null pointer checks” be nicer here?
Were any source code analysis tools involved for finding
these update candidates?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists