[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AB76BD3.80802@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:04:35 +0000
From: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-2.6 PATCH 2/6] net: remove kfree_skb on a NULL pointer in
af_netlink.c
David Miller wrote:
> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:57:29 -0700
>
>
>> From: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
>>
>> This removes a kfree_skb that is being called on a NULL pointer when
>> do_one_broadcast() is sucessful. And moves the kfree_skb into
>> do_one_broadcast() for the error case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
>>
>
> kfree_skb() on a NULL pointer is completely legal.
>
OK, but this depends on the unlikely() macro in kfree_skb() to catch a
case that is the expected non-error case. Would it be better to wrap the
kfree_skb() in an if statement to avoid hitting the unlikely() macro?
Or is the performance hit from the unlikely() macro so small this is not
an issue? Thanks for looking at these.
john.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists