[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f22920-9543-efd1-a32a-477ae18a2b2a@inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:56:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
cc: 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>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"cocci@...ia.fr" <cocci@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: [0/2] powerpc/powernv/vas: Adjustments for two function
implementations
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> 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 ?
Coccinelle does what the developer of the semantic patch tells it to do.
It doesn't spontaneously report errors for anything.
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists