lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] net-hsr: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "kfree_skb"
    On 2015-11-14 22:28, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
    > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
    > Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:23:48 +0100
    >
    > The kfree_skb() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
    > returns immediately. Thus the test around the calls is not needed.
    >

    > diff --git a/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c b/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c
    > index 7871ed6..55ba943 100644
    > --- a/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c
    > +++ b/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c
    > @@ -355,11 +355,8 @@ void hsr_forward_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, struct hsr_port *port)
    > goto out_drop;
    > hsr_register_frame_in(frame.node_src, port, frame.sequence_nr);
    > hsr_forward_do(&frame);
    > -
    > - if (frame.skb_hsr != NULL)
    > - kfree_skb(frame.skb_hsr);
    > - if (frame.skb_std != NULL)
    > - kfree_skb(frame.skb_std);
    > + kfree_skb(frame.skb_hsr);
    > + kfree_skb(frame.skb_std);

    Thanks for doing checks on the HSR code, and I apologise for the late reply! Not sure if this has
    already been applied, but:

    You're right of course that these checks are not strictly necessary. However, it is likely that at
    least one of these (.skb_hsr or .skb_std) will be NULL here, so it could be considered nice form to
    check for this and not just trust kfree_skb() to do this. I'm not sure what's considered more
    correct in the kernel, so I will just say that I'm agnostic about this and let others decide.

    Again, thanks!

    --
    Arvid Brodin
    ALTEN Sweden
    www.alten.com | www.alten.se



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-11-24 15:01    [W:5.877 / U:0.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site