netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] net, ipv6: remove redundant NULL checks before kfree in ip6_

To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net, ipv6: remove redundant NULL checks before kfree in ip6_flowlabel.c
From: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:21:01 +0100 (CET)
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050317.115444.31670680.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0503170027390.2558@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050317.115444.31670680.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] µÈÆ£±ÑÌÀ wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.62.0503170027390.2558@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> (at Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:36:35 +0100 (CET)), Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@xxxxxx> 
> says:
> 
> > I considered also rewriting the 
> >         if (fl)
> >                 fl_free(fl);
> > bit as simply fl_free(fl) as well, but that if() potentially saves two 
> > calls to kfree() inside fl_free as well as the call to fl_free itself, so 
> > I guess that's worth the if().
> 
> I don't mind calling kfree twice itself (because that function is not
> so performance critical), but fl_free(NULL) is out because
> if fl is NULL, kfree(fl->opt) is out.
> 
Yes, you are right ofcourse. 
Thanks.

-- 
Jesper



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>