From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 08:47:01 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] staging: rtl8188eu: Deletion of unnecessary checks before three function calls Message-Id: List-Id: References: <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> <544954FD.8040607@users.sourceforge.net> <20141029084702.GA18675@kroah.com> <5453CD0D.9010206@users.sourceforge.net> <5463C10D.6020409@users.sourceforge.net> <5463C22B.7060405@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <5463C22B.7060405@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:25:49 +0100 > > The functions kfree(), rtw_free_netdev() and vfree() test whether their > argument is NULL and then return immediately. Thus the test around the call > is not needed. > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring > --- > drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_efuse.c | 3 +-- > drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme.c | 3 +-- > drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_sta_mgt.c | 3 +-- > drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_xmit.c | 6 ++---- > drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_intf.c | 6 +++--- > 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_efuse.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_efuse.c > index 5b997b2..697876b 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_efuse.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_efuse.c > @@ -212,8 +212,7 @@ efuse_phymap_to_logical(u8 *phymap, u16 _offset, u16 _size_byte, u8 *pbuf) > exit: > kfree(efuseTbl); > > - if (eFuseWord) > - kfree(eFuseWord); > + kfree(eFuseWord); > } As far as I can tell, the 2/2 patch in this series proposes a completely different fix for this code. When you send a series, patch n+1/m is supposed to apply to the result of patch n/m. In any case, you can let this one go, because the problem has been fixed already. julia