On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:20:42 +0100 SF Markus Elfring <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 15:10:57 +0100 > > The kfree() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then > returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed. > > * This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > * Let us also move an assignment for the variable "pages" to the place > directly before it is really needed for a loop. > > * Let us also move another kfree() call into a block which should belong > to a previous check for the variable "bp". > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/md/bitmap.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/md/bitmap.c b/drivers/md/bitmap.c > index da3604e..47d72df 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/bitmap.c > +++ b/drivers/md/bitmap.c > @@ -1586,15 +1586,15 @@ static void bitmap_free(struct bitmap *bitmap) > bitmap_file_unmap(&bitmap->storage); > > bp = bitmap->counts.bp; > - pages = bitmap->counts.pages; > > /* free all allocated memory */ > - > - if (bp) /* deallocate the page memory */ > + if (bp) { /* deallocate the page memory */ > + pages = bitmap->counts.pages; > for (k = 0; k < pages; k++) > - if (bp[k].map && !bp[k].hijacked) > + if (!bp[k].hijacked) > kfree(bp[k].map); > - kfree(bp); > + kfree(bp); > + } > kfree(bitmap); > } > Hi, I'm somewhat amused that you removed a test for one kfree, but imposed a test on another. I realised the second test was already there, but why not just: diff --git a/drivers/md/bitmap.c b/drivers/md/bitmap.c index da3604e73e8a..ad13b2e1bf1f 100644 --- a/drivers/md/bitmap.c +++ b/drivers/md/bitmap.c @@ -1592,7 +1592,7 @@ static void bitmap_free(struct bitmap *bitmap) if (bp) /* deallocate the page memory */ for (k = 0; k < pages; k++) - if (bp[k].map && !bp[k].hijacked) + if (!bp[k].hijacked) kfree(bp[k].map); kfree(bp); kfree(bitmap); It makes the intention of the patch much clearer. I'd probably prefer to leave the code as it is. I don't think either patch is really an improvement in readability, and readability trumps performance in places like this. Thanks, NeilBrown
pgpBBBX3Ggm38.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
