[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46fe66f7-dc3b-4863-96e8-7a855316e8bd@web.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:51:31 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "D. Wythe"
 <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [0/2] net/smc: Adjustments for two function implementations
…
>> A few update suggestions were taken into account
>> from static source code analysis.
…
>>    Return directly after a failed kzalloc() in smc_fill_gid_list()
>>    Improve exception handling in smc_llc_cli_add_link_invite()
>>
>>   net/smc/af_smc.c  |  2 +-
>>   net/smc/smc_llc.c | 15 +++++++--------
>>   2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
…
> I see you want to fix the kfree(NULL) issues in these two patches.
I propose to avoid redundant function calls at various source code places.
> But I am wondering if this is necessary, since kfree() can handle NULL correctly.
Would you prefer only required data processing in affected function implementations?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists