[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200916111159.GA923212@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:11:59 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: trix@...hat.com
Cc: jerome.pouiller@...abs.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wfx: simplify virt_addr_valid call
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 07:47:19AM -0700, trix@...hat.com wrote:
> From: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
>
> Reviewing sram_write_dma_safe(), there are two
> identical calls to virt_addr_valid(). The second
> call can be simplified by a comparison of variables
> set from the first call.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/wfx/fwio.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/fwio.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/fwio.c
> index 22d3b684f04f..c99adb0c99f1 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/fwio.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/fwio.c
> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ static int sram_write_dma_safe(struct wfx_dev *wdev, u32 addr, const u8 *buf,
> tmp = buf;
> }
> ret = sram_buf_write(wdev, addr, tmp, len);
> - if (!virt_addr_valid(buf))
> + if (tmp != buf)
> kfree(tmp);
> return ret;
> }
Jerome, any thoughts?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists