From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:08:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kprobes: Deletion of an unnecessary check before the function call "module_put" Message-Id: <546C41EF.4040502@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A086E.8010901@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <546899CF.8020808@users.sourceforge.net> <5469B08E.90104@hitachi.com> In-Reply-To: <5469B08E.90104@hitachi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr >> index 3995f54..f1e7d45 100644 >> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c >> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c >> @@ -1527,8 +1527,7 @@ int register_kprobe(struct kprobe *p) >> out: >> mutex_unlock(&kprobe_mutex); >> >> - if (probed_mod) >> - module_put(probed_mod); >> + module_put(probed_mod); > > This is OK, but I you request a comment line over there so that > code reader can understand it is safe to pass a NULL pointer to > module_put(). Do you want that I replace the shown null pointer check by a short comment which repeats an expectation for the affected function call? Regards, Markus