On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> The p9_client_clunk() function tests whether its argument is NULL > >> and then returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed. > >> > > > > Not true. You are not allowed to call p9_client_clunk(NULL). > > I find that it will work in principle if we refer to the same > function implementation. > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/net/9p/client.c?id=d8282ea05ad119247122de23db7d48ad6098cfa2#n1448 > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/net/9p/client.c#L1448 What do you mean by "work in principle"? One possible issue is the return value - I don't have the original patch so I don't know what is the call site, so I don't know if that is an issue. But you don't want to do a dump_stack for no reason. That would at best be very misleading, and I would imagine be quite expensive. 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
