On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 15:06 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 
> > jbd: Remove redundant NULL check upon kfree().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@gnu.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/jbd/transaction.c |    3 +--
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd/transaction.c b/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> > index 5ae71e7..5e98130 100644
> > --- a/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> > +++ b/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> > @@ -232,8 +232,7 @@ repeat_locked:
> >  
> >  	lock_map_acquire(&handle->h_lockdep_map);
> >  out:
> > -	if (unlikely(new_transaction))		/* It's usually NULL */
> > -		kfree(new_transaction);
> > +	kfree(new_transaction);
> 
> This doesn't seem entirely redundant, as it is optimized (via the 
> unlikely() hint) for the opposite case than what kfree() is optimized for 
> (kfree() assumes that the pointer is likely non-NULL, while the code above 
> assumes that the pointer si likely NULL).
> 

Ok, makes sense. I was a bit doubtful about the unlikely(), thanks for
the review.

Davidlohr

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/