On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 10:49:40PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 03:34:50PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:36:02 +0100
> >
> > Omit the unnecessary setting to a null pointer for the variable "param"
> > at the beginning of the function "iscsi_set_default_param"
> > because it can be directly initialized with the return value
> > from the function "kzalloc".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c b/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c
> > index 3a1f9a7..0a8bd3f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c
> > +++ b/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c
> > @@ -127,9 +127,8 @@ static struct iscsi_param *iscsi_set_default_param(struct iscsi_param_list *para
> > char *name, char *value, u8 phase, u8 scope, u8 sender,
> > u16 type_range, u8 use)
> > {
> > - struct iscsi_param *param = NULL;
> > + struct iscsi_param *param = kzalloc(sizeof(*param), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > - param = kzalloc(sizeof(struct iscsi_param), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!param) {
> > pr_err("Unable to allocate memory for parameter.\n");
> > goto out;
>
> It's better to just get rid of the initialization but leave the
> kzalloc() as-is for two reasons.
>
> 1) Initializer code normally contains more bugs per line than other
> code. I am thinking about dereferencing pointers before checking
> for NULL or not checking the allocation for failure.
>
> 2) It puts a blank line between the allocation and the check for
> failure. It's like a new paragraph. The allocation and the check
> should be next to each other.
I agree with Dan here. Please don't do it.
@@ -127,9 +127,8 @@ static struct iscsi_param *iscsi_set_default_param(struct iscsi_param_list *para
char *name, char *value, u8 phase, u8 scope, u8 sender,
u16 type_range, u8 use)
{
- struct iscsi_param *param = NULL;
+ struct iscsi_param *param;
param = kzalloc(sizeof(struct iscsi_param), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!param) {
pr_err("Unable to allocate memory for parameter.\n");
This way it would be _far_ more readable. IMHO one should have a 1 action per
line of code style and only assign values in at declaration time if really
necessary.
But what is the benefit from this? Is it fixing a (hypothetical) bug? I somehow
fail to see it.
Thanks,
Johannes
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumshirn@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
--
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
