On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 06:59:00PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/mxuport.c b/drivers/usb/serial/mxuport.c > > >> index ab1d690..3653ec1 100644 > > >> --- a/drivers/usb/serial/mxuport.c > > >> +++ b/drivers/usb/serial/mxuport.c > > >> @@ -1101,8 +1101,7 @@ static int mxuport_probe(struct usb_serial *serial, > > >> */ > > >> usb_set_serial_data(serial, (void *)id->driver_info); > > >> out: > > >> - if (fw_p) > > >> - release_firmware(fw_p); > > >> + release_firmware(fw_p); > > > > > > I think that the if should stay. > > > > I have got an other opinion. > > > > > > > There were two cases on the allocation, so there should be two cases > > > on the release. > > > > I find that this implementation detail does not really matter for the > > necessity of a null pointer check directly before such a function call. > > Conceptually, if it is clear 10 lines above that nothing was allocated, > and there is a fallback to existing data (according to the comment above) > it is strange to be releasing something. I agree with Julia here and will not apply this one. Thanks, Johan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
