jbd: Remove redundant NULL check upon kfree()
PATCH 1/1 jbd: Remove redundant NULL check upon kfree()
jbd: Remove redundant NULL check upon kfree().
--- fs/jbd/transaction.c | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
fs/jbd/transaction.c +1 -2
@@ -232,8 +232,7 @@ repeat_locked:lock_map_acquire (&handle->h_lockdep_map); out: -if (unlikely (new_transaction))/* It's usually NULL */ -kfree (new_transaction); +kfree (new_transaction);return ret; }
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.4
Quoted 12 lines · Davidlohr Bueso
jbd: Remove redundant NULL check upon
kfree().Signed-off-by Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>--- fs/jbd/transaction.c | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)fs/jbd/transaction.c +0
-0
fs/jbd/transaction.c repeat_locked: · line 235
Quoted 6 lines
fs/jbd/transaction.c +1
-2@@ -232,8 +232,7 @@ repeat_locked:lock_map_acquire (&handle->h_lockdep_map); out: -if (unlikely (new_transaction))/* It's usually NULL */ -kfree (new_transaction); +kfree (new_transaction);
This doesn't seem entirely redundant, as it is optimized (via the unlikely() hint) for the opposite case than what kfree() is optimized for (kfree() assumes that the pointer is likely non-NULL, while the code above assumes that the pointer si likely NULL).
Signature · 2 lines
Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Quoted 15 lines · Jiri Kosina
Quoted 13 lines · Davidlohr Bueso
jbd: Remove redundant NULL check upon
kfree().Signed-off-by Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>--- fs/jbd/transaction.c | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)fs/jbd/transaction.c +0
-0@@ -232,8 +232,7 @@ repeat_locked:
Quoted 11 lines
fs/jbd/transaction.c repeat_locked: · line 235
Quoted 5 lines
fs/jbd/transaction.c +1
-2lock_map_acquire (&handle->h_lockdep_map); out: -if (unlikely (new_transaction))/* It's usually NULL */ -kfree (new_transaction); +kfree (new_transaction);This doesn't seem entirely redundant, as it is optimized (via the
unlikely()hint) for the opposite case than whatkfree()is optimized for (kfree()assumes that the pointer is likely non-NULL, while the code above assumes that the pointer si likely NULL).
Ok, makes sense. I was a bit doubtful about the unlikely(), thanks for the review.
Davidlohr