[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZM1bm2+/lyb+IH86@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 23:12:11 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] irqdomain: Refactor error path in
__irq_domain_alloc_fwnode()
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 06:33:07PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2023-08-04 17:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > First of all, there is no need to call kasprintf() if the previous
> > allocation failed. Second, there is no need to call for kfree()
> > when we know that its parameter is NULL. Refactor the code accordingly.
...
> > n = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "irqchip@%pa", pa);
> > break;
> > }
> > -
> > - if (!fwid || !n) {
> > + if (!n) {
> > kfree(fwid);
> > - kfree(n);
> > return NULL;
> > }
>
> What are you trying to fix?
I'm not trying to fix anything (there is no such statement from me),
but I would think of some micro-optimization (speedup boot for
unnoticeable time? Dunno.).
> We have a common error handling path, which makes it easy to
> track the memory management. I don't think this sort of bike
> shedding adds much to the maintainability of this code.
Your call, of course, but I not often see in the kernel two or three attempts
to allocate some memory and have grouped check for the failure.
> Now if you have spotted an actual bug, I'm all ears.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists