[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20211130070312.5494-3-sakiwit@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 00:03:12 -0700
From: Jεan Sacren <sakiwit@...il.com>
To: steffen.klassert@...unet.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net-next] net: xfrm: drop check of pols[0] for the second time
From: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@...il.com>
!pols[0] is checked earlier. If we don't return, pols[0] is always
true. We should drop the check of pols[0] for the second time and the
binary is also smaller.
Before:
text data bss dec hex filename
48395 957 240 49592 c1b8 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.o
After:
text data bss dec hex filename
48379 957 240 49576 c1a8 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.o
Signed-off-by: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@...il.com>
---
net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
index 1a06585022ab..f1bf43b491dc 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
@@ -2680,7 +2680,7 @@ static int xfrm_expand_policies(const struct flowi *fl, u16 family,
*num_xfrms = pols[0]->xfrm_nr;
#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_SUB_POLICY
- if (pols[0] && pols[0]->action == XFRM_POLICY_ALLOW &&
+ if (pols[0]->action == XFRM_POLICY_ALLOW &&
pols[0]->type != XFRM_POLICY_TYPE_MAIN) {
pols[1] = xfrm_policy_lookup_bytype(xp_net(pols[0]),
XFRM_POLICY_TYPE_MAIN,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists