From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752678AbbAaWJv (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:09:51 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:55953 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751137AbbAaWJs (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:09:48 -0500 Message-ID: <54CD52A8.3040909@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 23:09:44 +0100 From: Lino Sanfilippo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SF Markus Elfring , "David S. Miller" , Jamal Hadi Salim , netdev@vger.kernel.org CC: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sched: One function call less in em_meta_change() after error detection 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> <54CD042E.6030606@users.sourceforge.net> <54CD15EE.5040401@gmx.de> <54CD4EB2.4010509@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <54CD4EB2.4010509@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:K09GwdSIdi3ja3CrBVxx0cd833XliHhZJYswAlEv75QsRWZhN67 4Pnuayu2KC7VjLgRxK92CLRS6M8qpuQT8LtIxXfEvhDgM4ygi8bHr+1lsuSwOuyI8pP7VhB yvX54oOToZomsLcsgQ9bwGBsuKMzrBeUUkbwq1Ck8cnif09jfPLZP4V+hS1OHfzUa43wBBs hpFWkx5CZ0WIi3ZGWh+HA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 31.01.2015 22:52, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> -errout: >>> - if (err && meta) >>> - meta_delete(meta); >> >> Since this patch seems to be about optimization and cleanup you should >> probably also remove the now unnecessary initialization of "meta" with >> NULL at the beginning of the function... > > Will the optimiser of the C compiler drop any remaining unnecessary > variable initialisations? > I dont know if that matters, since the code is not only used by compilers but also read by humans. > Do you want another update step here? > I am not the one who decides if this patch is acceptable or not. But I vote for a removal of that assignment (as a part of the same patch). Regards, Lino