Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <5D70A196.3020106@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 13:48:06 +0800
From:   zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: drm/amdgpu: remove the redundant null check
References: <1567491305-18320-1-git-send-email-zhongjiang@huawei.com> <62b33279-9ca9-5970-5336-a8511ce54197@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <62b33279-9ca9-5970-5336-a8511ce54197@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2019/9/5 1:50, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> debugfs_remove and kfree has taken the null check in account.
>> hence it is unnecessary to check it. Just remove the condition.
> How do you think about a wording like the following?
>
>   The functions “debugfs_remove” and “kfree” tolerate the passing
>   of null pointers. Hence it is unnecessary to check such arguments
>   around the calls. Thus remove the extra condition check at two places.
>
It's better, Thanks
>> No functional change.
> I find this information questionable while it is partly reasonable
> according to the shown software refactoring.
>
> Can a subject like “[PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Remove two redundant
> null pointer checks” be nicer here?
>
It's more clearer, thanks,  Will repost using above description in v2.
> Were any source code analysis tools involved for finding
> these update candidates?
With the help of Coccinelle. You can find out some example in scripts/coccinelle/.

Sincerely,
zhong jiang
> Regards,
> Markus
>
> .
>