> The callback function "rcu_free_wq" could be called after memory
> was released for "wq->rescuer" already and assignment is empty. so
> remove unnecessary kfree(NULL).
I have got the impression that also this wording approach contains weaknesses.
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
The data structure member “wq->rescuer” was reset to a null pointer
in one if branch. It was passed to a call of the function “kfree”
in the callback function “rcu_free_wq” (which was eventually executed).
The function “kfree” does not perform more meaningful data processing
for a passed null pointer (besides immediately returning from such a call).
Thus delete this function call which became unnecessary with the referenced
software update.
> Fixes: def98c84b6cd ("workqueue: Fix spurious sanity check failures in
> destroy_workqueue()")
This change triggered another collateral evolution finally.
Would you like to detect similarly questionable function calls
by advanced source code analysis?
> Fixes: 8efe1223d73c ("workqueue: Fix missing kfree(rescuer) in
> destroy_workqueue()")
Please delete this tag from the change description
(because I find that it is not so relevant here.)
> v1->v2->v3->v4:
> Modify wrong submission information.
Will it be nicer to mention the adjustment of the commit message?
Regards,
Markus
