Hi, Qu
On 9/8/2015 4:50 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Sheng Yong wrote on 2015/09/08 08:46 +0000:
>> * If the allocation failed, don't free to free it, even though kfree
>> allows to free a NULL pointer.
>> * If posix_acl_to_xattr() failed, cleanup the allocation and return
>> the error directly.
> So, what's the point?
> For me, I didn't see the pros of the change.
> As kfree() allow NULL pointer, why not use it?
In fact, there is no semantic changes. It's just because when I walk through
the code, and find there is no need to call kfree(), and could be cleaned up.
It's fine to keep as it is :)
thanks,
Sheng
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sheng Yong <shengyo...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/acl.c | 14 +++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/acl.c b/fs/btrfs/acl.c
>> index 9a0124a..6d01d09 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/acl.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/acl.c
>> @@ -103,18 +103,18 @@ static int __btrfs_set_acl(struct btrfs_trans_handle
>> *trans,
>> if (acl) {
>> size = posix_acl_xattr_size(acl->a_count);
>> value = kmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS);
>> - if (!value) {
>> - ret = -ENOMEM;
>> - goto out;
>> - }
>> + if (!value)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> ret = posix_acl_to_xattr(&init_user_ns, acl, value, size);
>> - if (ret < 0)
>> - goto out;
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + kfree(value);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> ret = __btrfs_setxattr(trans, inode, name, value, size, 0);
>> -out:
>> +
>> kfree(value);
>>
>> if (!ret)
>>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
