On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 12:19 +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > This patch is added to handle kfree and return error in a better way
>
> What's "better" about this?
>
> kfree(NULL) is perfectly valid, adding another label makes the code
> harder to read,
I agree with you.
when kzalloc(sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL) fails, try to avoid extra
kfree(cmd_channel) function call,
cause anyway it will call kfree with NULL.
I thought from that point of view.
>
> > - struct wl18xx_cmd_scan_params *cmd;
> > + struct wl18xx_cmd_scan_params *cmd = NULL;
>
> that new initialization is actually *completely* pointless since it's
> overwritten immediately here:
>
> > struct wlcore_scan_channels *cmd_channels = NULL;
> > int ret;
> >
> > cmd = kzalloc(sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!cmd) {
> > - ret = -ENOMEM;
> > - goto out;
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > }
> >
> ...
>
> what gives?
>
> johannes
Ok, I will drop this patch.
-Souptick
