2017-04-12 08:40:37

by Jason A. Donenfeld

Subject: [PATCH] padata: get_next is never NULL

Per Dan's static checker warning, the code that returns NULL was removed
in 2010, so this patch updates the comments and fixes the code
assumptions.

Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]>
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
kernel/padata.c | 13 ++++---------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/padata.c b/kernel/padata.c
index f1aef1639204..ac8f1e524836 100644
--- a/kernel/padata.c
+++ b/kernel/padata.c
@@ -154,8 +154,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(padata_do_parallel);
* A pointer to the control struct of the next object that needs
* serialization, if present in one of the percpu reorder queues.
*
- * NULL, if all percpu reorder queues are empty.
- *
* -EINPROGRESS, if the next object that needs serialization will
* be parallel processed by another cpu and is not yet present in
* the cpu's reorder queue.
@@ -182,8 +180,6 @@ static struct padata_priv *padata_get_next(struct parallel_data *pd)
cpu = padata_index_to_cpu(pd, next_index);
next_queue = per_cpu_ptr(pd->pqueue, cpu);

- padata = NULL;
-
reorder = &next_queue->reorder;

spin_lock(&reorder->lock);
@@ -235,12 +231,11 @@ static void padata_reorder(struct parallel_data *pd)
padata = padata_get_next(pd);

/*
- * All reorder queues are empty, or the next object that needs
- * serialization is parallel processed by another cpu and is
- * still on it's way to the cpu's reorder queue, nothing to
- * do for now.
+ * If the next object that needs serialization is parallel
+ * processed by another cpu and is still on it's way to the
+ * cpu's reorder queue, nothing to do for now.
*/
- if (!padata || PTR_ERR(padata) == -EINPROGRESS)
+ if (PTR_ERR(padata) == -EINPROGRESS)
break;

/*
--
2.12.2

2017-04-14 07:46:50

by Steffen Klassert

Subject: Re: [PATCH] padata: get_next is never NULL

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:40:19AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Per Dan's static checker warning, the code that returns NULL was removed
> in 2010, so this patch updates the comments and fixes the code
> assumptions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>

This looks ok,

Acked-by: Steffen Klassert <[email protected]>