[PATCH] ppc: vio of_node_put cleanup

[PATCH] ppc: vio of_node_put cleanup

[Mariusz Kozlowski]

Hello,

	This patch removes redundant argument check for of_node_put().

Signed-off-by: Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@tuxland.pl>

 arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c |    6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff -upr linux-2.6.20-rc2-mm1-a/arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c linux-2.6.20-rc2-mm1-b/arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c
--- linux-2.6.20-rc2-mm1-a/arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c	2006-12-24 05:00:32.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.20-rc2-mm1-b/arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c	2007-01-02 01:55:31.000000000 +0100
@@ -199,10 +199,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(vio_unregister_driver);
 /* vio_dev refcount hit 0 */
 static void __devinit vio_dev_release(struct device *dev)
 {
-	if (dev->archdata.of_node) {
-		/* XXX should free TCE table */
-		of_node_put(dev->archdata.of_node);
-	}
+	/* XXX should free TCE table */
+	of_node_put(dev->archdata.of_node);
 	kfree(to_vio_dev(dev));
 }
 


-- 
Regards,

	Mariusz Kozlowski

Re: [PATCH] ppc: vio of_node_put cleanup

[Segher Boessenkool]

>  static void __devinit vio_dev_release(struct device *dev)
>  {
> -	if (dev->archdata.of_node) {
> -		/* XXX should free TCE table */
> -		of_node_put(dev->archdata.of_node);
> -	}
> +	/* XXX should free TCE table */
> +	of_node_put(dev->archdata.of_node);
>  	kfree(to_vio_dev(dev));
>  }

The comment used to be inside the "if" block, is this
change correct?

[And, do we want all these changes anyway?  I don't care
either way, both sides have their pros and their cons --
just asking :-) ]


Segher

Re: [PATCH] ppc: vio of_node_put cleanup

[Mariusz Kozlowski]

Hello Segher, 

> The comment used to be inside the "if" block, is this
> change correct?

You'd prefer an empty line in there?

> [And, do we want all these changes anyway?  I don't care
> either way, both sides have their pros and their cons --
> just asking :-) ]

You know my opinion already :-)

-- 
Regards,

	Mariusz Kozlowski

Re: [PATCH] ppc: vio of_node_put cleanup

[Segher Boessenkool]

>> The comment used to be inside the "if" block, is this
>> change correct?
>
> You'd prefer an empty line in there?

Obviously, you should change the comment to include the
conditional, if that is what is needed.

>> [And, do we want all these changes anyway?  I don't care
>> either way, both sides have their pros and their cons --
>> just asking :-) ]
>
> You know my opinion already :-)

Heh.  Ok, I'll rephrase: is there _consensus_ that this is a
good thing :-)  [But never mind, I looked it up, and it is
*documented* as being supported, so fine with me].


Segher