From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-100.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-100.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25332F510; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 11:33:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R211e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=ay29a033018046050;MF=guwen@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=13;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0VzqYx19_1704195199; Received: from 30.221.130.246(mailfrom:guwen@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0VzqYx19_1704195199) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Tue, 02 Jan 2024 19:33:20 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 19:33:18 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1 Subject: Re: [0/2] net/smc: Adjustments for two function implementations To: Markus Elfring , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , "D. Wythe" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Jan Karcher , Paolo Abeni , Tony Lu , Wenjia Zhang Cc: LKML References: <8ba404fd-7f41-44a9-9869-84f3af18fb46@web.de> <93033352-4b9c-bf52-1920-6ccf07926a21@linux.alibaba.com> <46fe66f7-dc3b-4863-96e8-7a855316e8bd@web.de> From: Wen Gu In-Reply-To: <46fe66f7-dc3b-4863-96e8-7a855316e8bd@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2024/1/2 16:51, Markus Elfring wrote: > … >>> 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? > Thank you Markus. I understood that you want to avoid redundant function calls. But it is not very attractive to me since the calls occur on low-frequency paths or unlikely condition, resulting in limited performance loss and the current kfree() usage is fine and common. So what is the benfit? I noticed that some other discussions are on-going. It seems like you are trying to change other similiar places. Let's collect more opinions. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/828bb442-29d0-4bb8-b90d-f200bdd4faf6@web.de/ https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/90679f69-951c-47b3-b86f-75fd9fde3da3@web.de/ https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/dc0a1c9d-ceca-473d-9ad5-89b59e6af2e7@web.de/ https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cde82080-c715-473c-97ac-6ef66bba6d64@web.de/ Thanks. > Regards, > Markus