Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1269882 > unrolled thread
| Started by | SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-16 09:10 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-16 10:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[PATCH] x86: AMD-perf_event: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "free_percpu" SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2015-11-16 09:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86: AMD-perf_event: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "free_percpu" Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-16 10:20 +0100
| From | SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 09:10 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH] x86: AMD-perf_event: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "free_percpu" |
| Message-ID | <qvn1n-4Na-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:00:20 +0100 The free_percpu() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then returns immediately. Thus the test around the calls is not needed. This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> --- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_uncore.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_uncore.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_uncore.c index cc6cedb..240ecee 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_uncore.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_uncore.c @@ -588,11 +588,9 @@ fail_online: fail_l2: if (cpu_has_perfctr_nb) perf_pmu_unregister(&amd_nb_pmu); - if (amd_uncore_l2) - free_percpu(amd_uncore_l2); + free_percpu(amd_uncore_l2); fail_nb: - if (amd_uncore_nb) - free_percpu(amd_uncore_nb); + free_percpu(amd_uncore_nb); fail_nodev: return ret; -- 2.6.2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 10:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: AMD-perf_event: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "free_percpu" |
| Message-ID | <qvo78-5r9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1269882 |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 09:04:53AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:00:20 +0100 > > The free_percpu() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then > returns immediately. Thus the test around the calls is not needed. > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_uncore.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_uncore.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_uncore.c > index cc6cedb..240ecee 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_uncore.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_uncore.c > @@ -588,11 +588,9 @@ fail_online: > fail_l2: > if (cpu_has_perfctr_nb) > perf_pmu_unregister(&amd_nb_pmu); > - if (amd_uncore_l2) > - free_percpu(amd_uncore_l2); > + free_percpu(amd_uncore_l2); > fail_nb: > - if (amd_uncore_nb) > - free_percpu(amd_uncore_nb); > + free_percpu(amd_uncore_nb); So I'm really in two minds about such patches; yes its correct. But at the same time; this isn't a performance critical piece of code and the additional condition isn't hurting anything. Furthermore, I find the explicit test conceptually easier than remembering that kfree() works this way (while many other resource freeing functions do not). And in error paths -- which aren't our best code by far -- obvious safe is far preferred to clever. Ingo, preference? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web