(2014/11/19 16:08), SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> index 3995f54..f1e7d45 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c >>> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c >>> @@ -1527,8 +1527,7 @@ int register_kprobe(struct kprobe *p) >>> out: >>> mutex_unlock(&kprobe_mutex); >>> >>> - if (probed_mod) >>> - module_put(probed_mod); >>> + module_put(probed_mod); >> >> This is OK, but I you request a comment line over there so that >> code reader can understand it is safe to pass a NULL pointer to >> module_put(). > > Do you want that I replace the shown null pointer check by a short > comment which repeats an expectation for the affected function call? No, not "want". IMHO, if try_module_get(mod) is done only when mod!=NULL, we shouldn't call module_put(mod) when mod==NULL (even if it is possible), because those get/put method must be used as a pair, for the better understandings. Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
