On 11/18/2014 12:26 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:21:16 +0100 The kfree() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed. This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- net/sched/cls_bpf.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/sched/cls_bpf.c b/net/sched/cls_bpf.c index 0e30d58..f323944 100644 --- a/net/sched/cls_bpf.c +++ b/net/sched/cls_bpf.c @@ -212,8 +212,7 @@ static int cls_bpf_modify_existing(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp, if (fp_old) bpf_prog_destroy(fp_old); - if (bpf_old) - kfree(bpf_old); + kfree(bpf_old); return 0;
Maybe I need some coffee but I can't figure out what this patch is against... # grep bpf_old ./net/sched/cls_bpf.c # Marcus, what tree are you looking at? -- John Fastabend Intel Corporation -- 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
