Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kernel-trace: Less calls for iput() in create_trace_uprobe() after error detection

[Julia Lawall]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 20:22:22 +0100
> SF Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:49:39 +0100
> >
> > The iput() function was called in three cases by the create_trace_uprobe()
> > function during error handling even if the passed variable contained still
> > a null pointer. This implementation detail could be improved by the
> > introduction of another jump label.
>
> The first patch is fine, and the only reason is to save the few bytes
> that the branch check might take. It's in a path that is unlikely to be
> hit so it is not a performance issue at all.
>
> This patch is useless. I rather not apply any patch than to create
> another jump that skips over the freeing of iput() just because we know
> inode is null. That's why we had the if (inode) in the first place.
>
> So Nack on this patch and I'll contemplate applying the first one. I
> probably will as it seems rather harmless.

I wuold have thought that one could have just returned, like in the cases
above...  But maybe the printed message is useful.

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