Hi lizhe, On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 14:22:31 +0800 (CST) lizhe <sensor1010@xxxxxxx> wrote: > HI : > > > I found the problem at the first time and gave the solution, > > > > > Pphilipp Rudo just saw the solution to the problem and gave an explanation. > the author of this patch should only be me right, I only commented on the patch you sent. Could you please update the commit message and send a v2. Thanks Philipp > > > > > > > > lizhe > > > > > > > > > At 2022-04-25 09:36:17, "Baoquan He" <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On 12/14/21 at 05:32pm, Philipp Rudo wrote: > >> Hi lizhe, > >> > >> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 19:20:03 -0800 > >> lizhe <sensor1010@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > No judgment required ck_cmdline is NULL > >> > its caller has alreadly judged, see __parse_crashkernel > >> > function > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: lizhe <sensor1010@xxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > kernel/crash_core.c | 3 --- > >> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c > >> > index eb53f5ec62c9..9981cf9b9fe4 100644 > >> > --- a/kernel/crash_core.c > >> > +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c > >> > @@ -221,9 +221,6 @@ static __init char *get_last_crashkernel(char *cmdline, > >> > p = strstr(p+1, name); > >> > } > >> > > >> > - if (!ck_cmdline) > >> > - return NULL; > >> > - > >> > return ck_cmdline; > >> > } > >> > > >> > >> I agree that the if-block is not needed and can be removed. However, I > >> cannot follow your reasoning in the commit message. Could you please > >> explain it in more detail. > >> > >> The reason why I think that the 'if' can be removed is that the > >> expression can only be true when ck_cmdline = NULL. But with that the > >> last three lines are equivalent to > >> > >> if (!ck_cmdline) > >> return ck_cmdline; > >> > >> return ck_cmdline; > >> > >> Which simply doesn't make any sense. > > > >Right, the judgement actually introduces redundant codes. As Zhe > >replied, maybe you can rewrite the log and repost with your > >Signed-off-by, Philipp. As for Author, you two can discuss in private > >mail. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
