[resent] ALSA: emu10k1: Deletion of unnecessary checks before three function calls

Commit Message

SF Markus Elfring Nov. 3, 2014, 2:10 p.m. UTC

> Your patch can't be applied cleanly due to your MUA breaking the
> lines.  Please fix your MUA setup, or use an attachment if it's
> impossible, and resend the patch.

Thanks for your feedback.

Does this example show a conflict between long comments like
"snd_emu10k1_ctl_private_free( ... *kctl)" after patch ranges and line length
limitation for email eventually?


> Also, try to align the subject line with the relevant commits.  See
> "git log sound/pci/emu10k1"

I have attached my update suggestion with a slightly different commit title as
before. Is this variant acceptable?

Regards,
Markus

Comments

Takashi Iwai Nov. 3, 2014, 2:17 p.m. UTC | #1

At Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:10:40 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> > Your patch can't be applied cleanly due to your MUA breaking the
> > lines.  Please fix your MUA setup, or use an attachment if it's
> > impossible, and resend the patch.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> Does this example show a conflict between long comments like
> "snd_emu10k1_ctl_private_free( ... *kctl)" after patch ranges and line length
> limitation for email eventually?

Conflict?  It's your MUA that is broken.

> > Also, try to align the subject line with the relevant commits.  See
> > "git log sound/pci/emu10k1"
> 
> I have attached my update suggestion with a slightly different commit title as
> before. Is this variant acceptable?

So, you couldn't fix your MUA?  That's bad for you.  Many maintainers
dislike attachments and won't accept such patches.

Couldn't you simply send a patch via git-send-email?

In anyway, I applied the patch now.  Thanks.


Takashi

Patch

From 23bb7bd1325b7c9cc81761db3ebf3ea19f85338d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Markus Elfring <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:54:36 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] ALSA: emu10k1: Deletion of unnecessary checks before three
 function calls

The functions kfree(), release_firmware() and snd_util_memhdr_free() test
whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately. Thus the test
around the call is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[e-mail]>
---
 sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c | 9 +++------
 sound/pci/emu10k1/emufx.c        | 3 +--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c b/sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c
index 2292697..b4458a6 100644
--- a/sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c
+++ b/sound/pci/emu10k1/emu10k1_main.c
@@ -1289,10 +1289,8 @@  static int snd_emu10k1_free(struct snd_emu10k1 *emu)
 	}
 	if (emu->emu1010.firmware_thread)
 		kthread_stop(emu->emu1010.firmware_thread);
-	if (emu->firmware)
-		release_firmware(emu->firmware);
-	if (emu->dock_fw)
-		release_firmware(emu->dock_fw);
+	release_firmware(emu->firmware);
+	release_firmware(emu->dock_fw);
 	if (emu->irq >= 0)
 		free_irq(emu->irq, emu);
 	/* remove reserved page */
@@ -1301,8 +1299,7 @@  static int snd_emu10k1_free(struct snd_emu10k1 *emu)
 			(struct snd_util_memblk *)emu->reserved_page);
 		emu->reserved_page = NULL;
 	}
-	if (emu->memhdr)
-		snd_util_memhdr_free(emu->memhdr);
+	snd_util_memhdr_free(emu->memhdr);
 	if (emu->silent_page.area)
 		snd_dma_free_pages(&emu->silent_page);
 	if (emu->ptb_pages.area)
diff --git a/sound/pci/emu10k1/emufx.c b/sound/pci/emu10k1/emufx.c
index 745f062..eb5c0ab 100644
--- a/sound/pci/emu10k1/emufx.c
+++ b/sound/pci/emu10k1/emufx.c
@@ -777,8 +777,7 @@  static void snd_emu10k1_ctl_private_free(struct snd_kcontrol *kctl)
 	kctl->private_value = 0;
 	list_del(&ctl->list);
 	kfree(ctl);
-	if (kctl->tlv.p)
-		kfree(kctl->tlv.p);
+	kfree(kctl->tlv.p);
 }
 
 static int snd_emu10k1_add_controls(struct snd_emu10k1 *emu,
-- 
2.1.3