On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:43:11PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 03:24:42PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > try_module_get(NULL) is true, so there is no need to check owner being > > NULL. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/char_dev.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/char_dev.c b/fs/char_dev.c > > index 950b6919fb87..6ba032442b39 100644 > > --- a/fs/char_dev.c > > +++ b/fs/char_dev.c > > @@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ static struct kobject *cdev_get(struct cdev *p) > > struct module *owner = p->owner; > > struct kobject *kobj; > > > > - if (owner && !try_module_get(owner)) > > + if (!try_module_get(owner)) > > return NULL; > > kobj = kobject_get_unless_zero(&p->kobj); > > if (!kobj) > > I wouldn't mind that, if that logics in try_module_get() was inlined. > It isn't... I don't understand what you intend to say here. What is "that"? Are you talking about owner && !try_module_get(owner) vs !try_module_get(owner) or the following line with kobject_get_unless_zero? Do you doubt the validity of my patch, or is it about something try_module_get() could/should do more than it currently does? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
