[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3711cad3-a627-4a6e-8769-ce916c1919ee@csgroup.eu>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 12:18:49 +0000
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, 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" <cocci@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: [0/2] powerpc/powernv/vas: Adjustments for two function
implementations
Le 16/04/2024 à 14:14, Markus Elfring a écrit :
>> 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?
Sure they can, but is that worth it here ?
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists