[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <33a38d7e-26da-46e0-90d4-7137f9ec0c90@web.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:14:27 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cocci@...ia.fr
Subject: Re: [0/2] powerpc/powernv/vas: Adjustments for two function
implementations
> This is explicit in Kernel documentation:
>
> /**
> * kfree - free previously allocated memory
> * @object: pointer returned by kmalloc() or kmem_cache_alloc()
> *
> * If @object is NULL, no operation is performed.
> */
>
> That's exactly the same behaviour as free() in libc.
>
> So Coccinelle should be fixed if it reports an error for that.
Redundant function calls can occasionally be avoided accordingly,
can't they?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists