[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3114902.a6trr6AKoC@pc-42>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:22:06 +0200
From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@...abs.com>
To: trix@...hat.com, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wfx: simplify virt_addr_valid call
On Wednesday 16 September 2020 13:11:59 CEST Greg KH wrote:
> 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?
Looks correct.
Reviewed-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@...abs.com>
--
Jérôme Pouiller
Powered by blists - more mailing lists