Re: mm/slub.c: inconsequent NULL checking

2008-02-20 Thread Pekka Enberg 

Hi Adrian,

On 2/20/2008, "Adrian Bunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Coverity checker spotted the following inconsequent NULL checking
> introduced by commit 8ff12cfc009a2a38d87fa7058226fe197bb2696f:
> 
> <--  snip  -->
> 
> ...
> static inline int is_end(void *addr)
> {
> return (unsigned long)addr & PAGE_MAPPING_ANON;
> }
> ...
> static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_cpu *c)
> {
> ...
> if (c->freelist)<
> stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);

I spotted this too. c->freelist should never be NULL so why not send a
patch to Christoph?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: mm/slub.c: inconsequent NULL checking

2008-02-20 Thread Pekka Enberg 

Hi Adrian,

On 2/20/2008, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The Coverity checker spotted the following inconsequent NULL checking
 introduced by commit 8ff12cfc009a2a38d87fa7058226fe197bb2696f:
 
 --  snip  --
 
 ...
 static inline int is_end(void *addr)
 {
 return (unsigned long)addr  PAGE_MAPPING_ANON;
 }
 ...
 static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_cpu *c)
 {
 ...
 if (c-freelist)
 stat(c, DEACTIVATE_REMOTE_FREES);

I spotted this too. c-freelist should never be NULL so why not send a
patch to Christoph?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/