发件人：Joe Perches <[email protected]> 发送日期：2020-04-27 01:53:06 收件人："Christian König" <[email protected]>,Bernard Zhao <[email protected]>,Alex Deucher <[email protected]>,"David (ChunMing) Zhou" <[email protected]>,David Airlie <[email protected]>,Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected] 抄送人：[email protected] 主题：Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: cleanup coding style a bit>On Sun, 2020-04-26 at 15:18 +0200, Christian König wrote: >> Am 26.04.20 um 15:12 schrieb Bernard Zhao: >> > Maybe no need to check ws before kmalloc, kmalloc will check >> > itself, kmalloc`s logic is if ptr is NULL, kmalloc will just >> > return >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao <[email protected]> >> >> Reviewed-by: Christian König <[email protected]> >> >> I'm wondering why the automated scripts haven't found that one before. > >because this pattern is > > if (foo) > kfree(bar); > >and the pattern looked for is: > > if (foo) > kfree(foo); > >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c >[] >> > @@ -1211,8 +1211,7 @@ static int atom_execute_table_locked(struct >> > atom_context *ctx, int index, uint32 >> > SDEBUG("<<\n"); >> > >> > free: >> > - if (ws) >> > - kfree(ectx.ws); >> > + kfree(ectx.ws); >> > return ret; >> > } > >I'm wondering if this removal is correct as the function >is named _locked and it may be recursive or called under >some external lock. > Hi I am a little confused about this. I understand that the caller guarantees the lock protection that we will not release the wrong pointer. And the NULL check is the same with the first check in kfree? Maybe we do not need check twich.
Regards, Bernard _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
