On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:13:21 +1100
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/12/18 7:57 pm, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > I now realize that I should have mentioned the real motivation for this
> > change. I'm working on refactoring the code so that we can use ocxl in a
> > KVM guest. The concept of link can be
On 11/12/18 7:57 pm, Greg Kurz wrote:
I now realize that I should have mentioned the real motivation for this
change. I'm working on refactoring the code so that we can use ocxl in a
KVM guest. The concept of link can be shared by both powernv and pseries
variants but the SPA is definitely a
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:05:49 +1100
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/12/18 2:15 am, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > The only users of free_spa() are alloc_link() and free_link(), and
> > in both cases:
> >
> > - link->spa != NULL
> >
> > - free_spa(link) is immediatly followed by kfree(link)
> >
> > The
On 11/12/18 2:15 am, Greg Kurz wrote:
The only users of free_spa() are alloc_link() and free_link(), and
in both cases:
- link->spa != NULL
- free_spa(link) is immediatly followed by kfree(link)
The check isn't needed, and it doesn't bring much to clear the link->spa
pointer. Drop both.
The only users of free_spa() are alloc_link() and free_link(), and
in both cases:
- link->spa != NULL
- free_spa(link) is immediatly followed by kfree(link)
The check isn't needed, and it doesn't bring much to clear the link->spa
pointer. Drop both.
Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz
---
Le 10/12/2018 à 16:15, Greg Kurz a écrit :
The only users of free_spa() are alloc_link() and free_link(), and
in both cases:
- link->spa != NULL
- free_spa(link) is immediatly followed by kfree(link)
The check isn't needed, and it doesn't bring much to clear the link->spa
pointer. Drop
