From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurence Oberman Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "kfree" Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2031535968.6447913.1469364671549.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Hannes Reinecke , "James E. J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: "SF Markus Elfring" > To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "Christoph Hellwig" , "Hannes Reinecke" , "James E. J. > Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" > Cc: "LKML" , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, "Julia Lawall" > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 8:30:35 AM > Subject: [PATCH] scsi: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "kfree" > > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 14:20:21 +0200 > > The kfree() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then > returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed. > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring > --- > drivers/scsi/scsi.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi.c > index 1f36aca..1794c0c 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi.c > @@ -864,8 +864,7 @@ retry_pg83: > rcu_assign_pointer(sdev->vpd_pg83, vpd_buf); > mutex_unlock(&sdev->inquiry_mutex); > synchronize_rcu(); > - if (orig_vpd_buf) > - kfree(orig_vpd_buf); > + kfree(orig_vpd_buf); > } > } > > -- > 2.9.2 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Looks fine, small comment is that the function call prior to check in the fucntion sets up variables etc. So is more expensive than a simple NULL check prior. Reviewed-by: Laurence Oberman