It seems that cma_detach_from_dev():
> +static void cma_detach_from_dev(struct rdma_id_private *id_priv)
> +{
> + list_del(&id_priv->list);
> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&id_priv->cma_dev->refcount))
> + wake_up(&id_priv->cma_dev->wait);
> + id_priv->cma_dev = NULL;
> +}
doesn't need to do atomic_dec_and_test(), because it is never dropping
the last reference to id_priv (and in fact if it was, the last line
would be a use-after-free bug).
Does it make sense to replace it with:
static void cma_detach_from_dev(struct rdma_id_private *id_priv)
{
list_del(&id_priv->list);
/*
* cma_detach_from_dev() will never be dropping the last
* reference to id_priv, so no need to test here.
*/
atomic_dec(&id_priv->cma_dev->refcount);
id_priv->cma_dev = NULL;
}
on my x86_64 build that's worth
add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-40 (-40)
function old new delta
cma_detach_from_dev 106 66 -40
- R.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
