Hi lizhe, On Mon, 2 May 2022 18:11:20 +0800 (CST) lizhe <sensor1010@xxxxxxx> wrote: > HI Philipp Rudo. > > > When ck_cmdline is NULL. The last three lines of this function are equivalent to : > if ( ! NULL) > return NULL; > return NULL; > This is obviously a redundant check. > > > I will use the above description to describe the patch, the explanation looks good to me. Thanks! Philipp > > thanks. > lizhe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 2022-04-26 16:39:52, "Philipp Rudo" <prudo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Hi lizhe, > > > >On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:38:57 -0700 > >lizhe <sensor1010@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> When ck_cmdline is NULL, the only caller of get_last_crashkernel() > >> has already done non-NULL check(see __parse_crashkernel()), > >> so it doesn't make any sense to make a check here > > > >sorry, but I still don't like the description. What I don't understand > >in particular is why you are mentioning the caller (__parse_crashkernel) > >here. ck_cmdline is a local variable to get_last_crashkernel. So the > >caller cannot perform any check on the variable but only the return > >value of the function. So the patch description should describe why we > >can remove the additional return NULL without changing the behavior of > >the function. > > > >Thanks > >Philipp > > > >> 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 256cf6db573c..c232f01a2c54 100644 > >> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c > >> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c > >> @@ -222,9 +222,6 @@ static __init char *get_last_crashkernel(char *cmdline, > >> p = strstr(p+1, name); > >> } > >> > >> - if (!ck_cmdline) > >> - return NULL; > >> - > >> return ck_cmdline; > >> } > >> _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
