From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: net-PA Semi: Deletion of unnecessary checks before the function call "pci_dev_put" Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 21:35:09 +0300 Message-ID: <20141202183509.GI4994@mwanda> References: <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <547BC5AD.6090500@users.sourceforge.net> <1417465745.28610.0.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1417539208.1841.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Julia Lawall , SF Markus Elfring , Lino Sanfilippo , Olof Johansson , netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, backports-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, LKML , kernel-janitors-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Johannes Berg Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1417539208.1841.1.camel-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: backports-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 05:53:28PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 21:34 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > So this kind of evolution is no problem for the (automated) backports > > > using the backports project - although it can be difficult to detect > > > such a thing is needed. > > > > That is exactly the problem... > > I'm not convinced though that it should stop such progress in mainline. Is it progress? These patches match the code look simpler by passing hiding the NULL check inside a function call. Calling pci_dev_put(NULL) doesn't make sense. Just because a sanity check exists doesn't mean we should do insane things. It's easy enough to store which functions have a sanity check in a database, but to rememember all that as a human being trying to read the code is impossible. If we really wanted to make this code cleaner we would introduce more error labels with better names. regards, dan carpenter