Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/octeontx2: remove logically dead code

[Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:04 PM wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerinjacobk@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 2:15 AM
> > To: wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> > Cc: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>; Nithin
> > Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; Kiran Kumar K
> > <kirankumark@marvell.com>; Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>;
> > xudingke <xudingke@huawei.com>; dpdk stable <stable@dpdk.org>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/octeontx2: remove logically dead code
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 4:48 PM wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> > >
> > > Coverity issue: 357719
> > > Fixes: da138cd47e06 ("net/octeontx2: handle port reconfigure")
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev.c | 2 --
> > >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev.c
> > > b/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev.c
> > > index 33b72bd4d..3f9399cc8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev.c
> > > @@ -1355,8 +1355,6 @@ nix_store_queue_cfg_and_then_release(struct
> > > rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
> > >  fail:
> >
> > See below
> >
> > >         if (tx_qconf)
> > >                 free(tx_qconf);
> > > -       if (rx_qconf)
> > > -               free(rx_qconf);
> >
> > I think, it is clean and maintainable code have free() if rx_qconf as if we add
> > some another exit error case in the future, we simply forget to add this check
> > and it will fail. So I prefer to keep as-is for the sake of maintainability as there is
> > no harm.
>
> Hi, Jerin
>
> Thanks for your explanation.
> According to Stephen's suggestion, is it need to remove unnecessary NULL check?

Yes. Makes sense to remove if check.

>
> Thanks,
> Yunjian
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >         return -ENOMEM;
> > >  }
> > > --
> > > 2.23.0
> > >
> > >