On 2/16/23 15:19, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
Hi On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 02:37:15AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:From 4fe34831e2e7677b1c9616356f0a2e0a36ec092f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jesper Juhl <jesperjuhl76@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 02:33:05 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Don't test for NULL firmware before releasing release_firmware() tests for a NULL pointer itself, no need to do it up-front. Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jesperjuhl76@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/falcon.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/falcon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/falcon.c index c0d85463eb1a..ae599441f031 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/falcon.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/falcon.c @@ -153,8 +153,7 @@ int falcon_init(struct falcon *falcon) void falcon_exit(struct falcon *falcon) { - if (falcon->firmware.firmware) - release_firmware(falcon->firmware.firmware); + release_firmware(falcon->firmware.firmware);Please check patches with checkpatch.pl before posting. Regards Stanislaw
Aside the formatting deficiencies, I'm also not in favor of relying on NULL checks inside callees since doing so removes contextual information from the programmer; just looking at the code, it is easy to assume the pointer cannot be NULL if there is no NULL check. Recently had a longer thread about this in the context of kfree in TegraDRM.
Thanks Mikko
