Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1651504 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v2 07/27] thunderbolt: Allow passing NULL to tb_ctl_free()

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.

Contents

  [PATCH v2 07/27] thunderbolt: Allow passing NULL to tb_ctl_free() Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-26 18:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 07/27] thunderbolt: Allow passing NULL to tb_ctl_free() Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 17:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 07/27] thunderbolt: Allow passing NULL to tb_ctl_free() Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-28 10:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 07/27] thunderbolt: Allow passing NULL to  tb_ctl_free() Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-29 14:20 +0200

#1651504 — [PATCH v2 07/27] thunderbolt: Allow passing NULL to tb_ctl_free()

Following the usual pattern used in many places, we allow passing NULL
pointer to tb_ctl_free(). Then the user can call the function regardless
if it has allocated control channel or not making the code bit simpler.

Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/thunderbolt/ctl.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/thunderbolt/ctl.c b/drivers/thunderbolt/ctl.c
index 889a32dd21e7..f8290a577b2b 100644
--- a/drivers/thunderbolt/ctl.c
+++ b/drivers/thunderbolt/ctl.c
@@ -520,6 +520,10 @@ struct tb_ctl *tb_ctl_alloc(struct tb_nhi *nhi, hotplug_cb cb, void *cb_data)
 void tb_ctl_free(struct tb_ctl *ctl)
 {
 	int i;
+
+	if (!ctl)
+		return;
+
 	if (ctl->rx)
 		ring_free(ctl->rx);
 	if (ctl->tx)
-- 
2.11.0

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1651903

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Following the usual pattern used in many places, we allow passing NULL
> pointer to tb_ctl_free(). Then the user can call the function regardless
> if it has allocated control channel or not making the code bit simpler.
>

+Suggested-by as you mentioned in cover letter?

> Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/thunderbolt/ctl.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thunderbolt/ctl.c b/drivers/thunderbolt/ctl.c
> index 889a32dd21e7..f8290a577b2b 100644
> --- a/drivers/thunderbolt/ctl.c
> +++ b/drivers/thunderbolt/ctl.c
> @@ -520,6 +520,10 @@ struct tb_ctl *tb_ctl_alloc(struct tb_nhi *nhi, hotplug_cb cb, void *cb_data)
>  void tb_ctl_free(struct tb_ctl *ctl)
>  {
>         int i;
> +
> +       if (!ctl)
> +               return;
> +
>         if (ctl->rx)
>                 ring_free(ctl->rx);
>         if (ctl->tx)
> --
> 2.11.0
>



-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1652056

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 06:41:28PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Following the usual pattern used in many places, we allow passing NULL
> > pointer to tb_ctl_free(). Then the user can call the function regardless
> > if it has allocated control channel or not making the code bit simpler.
> >
> 
> +Suggested-by as you mentioned in cover letter?

OK, I'll add it.

BTW, should I do it for the other patch that was suggested by Andreas as
well?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1652481 — Re: [PATCH v2 07/27] thunderbolt: Allow passing NULL to tb_ctl_free()

On Sun, 2017-05-28 at 11:13 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 06:41:28PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > Following the usual pattern used in many places, we allow passing
> > > NULL
> > > pointer to tb_ctl_free(). Then the user can call the function
> > > regardless
> > > if it has allocated control channel or not making the code bit
> > > simpler.
> > > 
> > 
> > +Suggested-by as you mentioned in cover letter?
> 
> OK, I'll add it.
> 
> BTW, should I do it for the other patch that was suggested by Andreas
> as
> well?

Sure


-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web