> kmem_cache_destroy and mempool_destroy can correctly handle > null pointer parameter, so there is no need to check if the > parameter is null before calling kmem_cache_destroy and > mempool_destroy. Can another imperative wording be preferred for the change description? … > +++ b/drivers/scsi/virtio_scsi.c > @@ -1003,14 +1003,10 @@ static int __init init(void) > return 0; > > error: Can such a label be questionable? … > + mempool_destroy(virtscsi_cmd_pool); > + virtscsi_cmd_pool = NULL; > + kmem_cache_destroy(virtscsi_cmd_cache); > + virtscsi_cmd_cache = NULL; > return ret; > } How do you think about to add a jump target so that the execution of a few statements can be avoided according to a previous null pointer check? Regards, Markus
