On Sun, 16 Nov 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 20:22:22 +0100 > SF Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:49:39 +0100 > > > > The iput() function was called in three cases by the create_trace_uprobe() > > function during error handling even if the passed variable contained still > > a null pointer. This implementation detail could be improved by the > > introduction of another jump label. > > The first patch is fine, and the only reason is to save the few bytes > that the branch check might take. It's in a path that is unlikely to be > hit so it is not a performance issue at all. > > This patch is useless. I rather not apply any patch than to create > another jump that skips over the freeing of iput() just because we know > inode is null. That's why we had the if (inode) in the first place. > > So Nack on this patch and I'll contemplate applying the first one. I > probably will as it seems rather harmless. I wuold have thought that one could have just returned, like in the cases above... But maybe the printed message is useful. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
