On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 13:50:19 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/13, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> >
> > On 08/11/2018 01:27 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> > >> +
> > >> +static void delayed_uprobe_delete(struct delayed_uprobe *du)
> > >> +{
> > >> + if (!du)
> > >> + return;
> > > Do we really need this check?
> >
> > Not necessary though, but I would still like to keep it for a safety.
>
> Heh. I tried to ignore all minor problems in this version, but now that Song
> mentioned this unnecessary check...
>
> Personally I really dislike the checks like this one.
>
> - It can confuse the reader who will try to understand the purpose
>
> - it can hide a bug if delayed_uprobe_delete(du) is actually called
> with du == NULL.
>
> IMO, you should either remove it and let the kernel crash (to notice the
> problem), or turn it into
>
> if (WARN_ON(!du))
> return;
I'd prefer the more robust WARN_ON(!du) above instead of removing it.
-- Steve
