From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932190AbWF2F1E (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:27:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932192AbWF2F1E (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:27:04 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:50627 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932190AbWF2F1D (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:27:03 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=XeZh1tYT6NPlGbK7K5gKaR7ejxfQ01LqgRGnZNLMm/PbO7R4kCrIJdnLGcTqitkJPF2XkPnLu7aTrZPsW2YOspGrj8XmunPPtg5pZMdoE/Vvjv+zrZq00yQ5iUpYVYHR9sZWdaseXzPdQB22fj273twKYOxj3eYKFW80gd7P3Es= Message-ID: <84144f020606282227x662bdd48read6218cf2bab8fc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:27:01 +0300 From: "Pekka Enberg" To: "Russ Cox" Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [Patch] Dead code in fs/9p/vfs_inode.c Cc: "Eric Sesterhenn" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1151535167.28311.1.camel@alice> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 04f07fea4ad5de12 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/29/06, Russ Cox wrote: > > error: > > kfree(fcall); > > - if (ret) > > - iput(ret); > > - > > return ERR_PTR(err); > > } > > What about when someone changes the code and does have ret != NULL here? > This seems like reasonable defensive programming to me. Well, you're not supposed to change code without auditing for things like this anyway. Also, I fail to see why/how you would change v9fs_inode_from_fid() for that to happen? I'd say kill the check. Pekka