Re: [2.6 patch] mm/slub.c: remove unneeded NULL check

2008-02-22 Thread Pekka Enberg 

Adrian Bunk wrote:
There's no reason for checking c->freelist for being NULL here (and we'd 
anyway Oops below if it was).


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

---
dae2a3c60f258f3ad2522b85d79b735a89d702f0 diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 74c65af..072e0a6 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -1404,8 +1404,7 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct 
kmem_cache_cpu *c)
struct page *page = c->page;
int tail = 1;
 
-	if (c->freelist)

-   stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);
+   stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);
/*
 * Merge cpu freelist into freelist. Typically we get here
 * because both freelists are empty. So this is unlikely


Christoph, please apply.

Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[2.6 patch] mm/slub.c: remove unneeded NULL check

2008-02-22 Thread Adrian Bunk 
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:52:44PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> On 2/20/2008, "Adrian Bunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Coverity checker spotted the following inconsequent NULL checking
> > introduced by commit 8ff12cfc009a2a38d87fa7058226fe197bb2696f:
> > 
> > <--  snip  -->
> > 
> > ...
> > static inline int is_end(void *addr)
> > {
> > return (unsigned long)addr & PAGE_MAPPING_ANON;
> > }
> > ...
> > static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_cpu *c)
> > {
> > ...
> > if (c->freelist)<
> > stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);
> 
> I spotted this too.

I missed that.

> c->freelist should never be NULL so why not send a
> patch to Christoph?

Patch below.

cu
Adrian


<--  snip  -->


There's no reason for checking c->freelist for being NULL here (and we'd 
anyway Oops below if it was).

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

---
dae2a3c60f258f3ad2522b85d79b735a89d702f0 diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 74c65af..072e0a6 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -1404,8 +1404,7 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct 
kmem_cache_cpu *c)
struct page *page = c->page;
int tail = 1;
 
-   if (c->freelist)
-   stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);
+   stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);
/*
 * Merge cpu freelist into freelist. Typically we get here
 * because both freelists are empty. So this is unlikely
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[2.6 patch] mm/slub.c: remove unneeded NULL check

2008-02-22 Thread Adrian Bunk 
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:52:44PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
 
 Hi Adrian,
 
 On 2/20/2008, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The Coverity checker spotted the following inconsequent NULL checking
  introduced by commit 8ff12cfc009a2a38d87fa7058226fe197bb2696f:
  
  --  snip  --
  
  ...
  static inline int is_end(void *addr)
  {
  return (unsigned long)addr  PAGE_MAPPING_ANON;
  }
  ...
  static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_cpu *c)
  {
  ...
  if (c-freelist)
  stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);
 
 I spotted this too.

I missed that.

 c-freelist should never be NULL so why not send a
 patch to Christoph?

Patch below.

cu
Adrian


--  snip  --


There's no reason for checking c-freelist for being NULL here (and we'd 
anyway Oops below if it was).

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
dae2a3c60f258f3ad2522b85d79b735a89d702f0 diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 74c65af..072e0a6 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -1404,8 +1404,7 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct 
kmem_cache_cpu *c)
struct page *page = c-page;
int tail = 1;
 
-   if (c-freelist)
-   stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);
+   stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);
/*
 * Merge cpu freelist into freelist. Typically we get here
 * because both freelists are empty. So this is unlikely
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [2.6 patch] mm/slub.c: remove unneeded NULL check

2008-02-22 Thread Pekka Enberg 

Adrian Bunk wrote:
There's no reason for checking c-freelist for being NULL here (and we'd 
anyway Oops below if it was).


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
dae2a3c60f258f3ad2522b85d79b735a89d702f0 diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 74c65af..072e0a6 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -1404,8 +1404,7 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct 
kmem_cache_cpu *c)
struct page *page = c-page;
int tail = 1;
 
-	if (c-freelist)

-   stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);
+   stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);
/*
 * Merge cpu freelist into freelist. Typically we get here
 * because both freelists are empty. So this is unlikely


Christoph, please apply.

Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/