On 14.08.2018 11:36, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:30:51AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>>
>> While it is correct in current code, I wonder if this sanity check
>> should stay. I would completely agree if it would be a static function.
>
> Hi David,
>
> Well, unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes() __only__ gets called from
> remove_memory_section().
> But remove_memory_section() only calls unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes() IFF
> mem_blk
> is not NULL:
>
> static int remove_memory_section
> {
> ...
> mem = find_memory_block(section);
> if (!mem)
> goto out_unlock;
>
> unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(mem, __section_nr(section));
> ...
> }
Yes I know, as I said, if it would be local to a file I would not care.
Making this functions never return an error is nice, though (and as you
noted, the return value is never checked).
I am a friend of stating which conditions a function expects to hold if
a function can be called from other parts of the system. Usually I
prefer to use BUG_ONs for that (whoever decides to call it can directly
see what he as to check before calling) or comments. But comments tend
to become obsolete.
>
> So, to me keeping the check is redundant, as we already check for it before
> calling in.
>
> Thanks
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
