On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:19:58 +0100 walter harms wrote: > > > Am 03.02.2015 10:07, schrieb NeilBrown: > > On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 09:48:01 +0100 walter harms wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Am 02.02.2015 20:46, schrieb NeilBrown: > >>> On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:20:42 +0100 SF Markus Elfring > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> From: Markus Elfring > >>>> 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 > >>>> --- > >>>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> > >> hello Neil, > >> just for my curiosity. > >> is it possible that a bp[k] exists but bp[k].hijacked is 0 ? > >> if that case: kfree(bp) would free an object in use. > >> otherwise hijacked seems useless here as it is possible to free > >> everything. > >> > >> re, > >> wh > > > > If .hijacked is 0, the .map is a pointer (that would need to be freed) or is > > NULL. > > If .hijacked is 1, then .map has been re-tasked as 2 16-bit counters. They > > are probably bother zero at this point, but I think it is safer to completely > > skip the 'free' if 'hijacked' is set as in that case 'map' isn't a pointer. > > > > It seems i was not clear enough, sorry about that. > > we have a loop to kfree(bp[k].map), thats fine how it is done. > > I am wondering about the kfree(bp) after the loop. > if bp[k].map is not freed for what ever reason how can it be freed later > after a kfree(bp) ? > > what is what i am missing ? Is there a hidden copy ? If bp[k].map is a pointer, it will be freed. If bp[k].map is not a pointer (because it has been hijacked), then there is nothing to free. So after the loop, all bp[k].maps that were allocated will have been freed. Does that help? NeilBrown > > re, > wh > > >