From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263777AbUFBRyC (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:54:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263772AbUFBRyC (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:54:02 -0400 Received: from kinesis.swishmail.com ([209.10.110.86]:18451 "EHLO kinesis.swishmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263777AbUFBRxW (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:53:22 -0400 Message-ID: <40BE173B.7090005@techsource.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:06:51 -0400 From: Timothy Miller MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?57+9IERlamVhbg==?= CC: LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfree calls cleanup References: <1085408263.26813.4.camel@athlon> In-Reply-To: <1085408263.26813.4.camel@athlon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Benoît Dejean wrote: > i've removed some useless test for NULL pointer before kfree calls. > if(p) kfree(p) -> kfree(p) > i've also removed variables that have become unused. > the patch is quite big, but i've check it many times. This is valid since kfree checks for null pointer, but while the extra "if (p)" is redundant, if p is most often NULL somewhere, then you can avoid the function call overhead by this very low-cost check. (Unless kfree is a macro which includes the check in the macro.)