> -----Original Message----- > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 2:15 AM > To: wangyunjian <[email protected]> > Cc: dpdk-dev <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>; Nithin > Dabilpuram <[email protected]>; Kiran Kumar K > <[email protected]>; Lilijun (Jerry) <[email protected]>; > xudingke <[email protected]>; dpdk stable <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/octeontx2: remove logically dead code > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 4:48 PM wangyunjian <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > From: Yunjian Wang <[email protected]> > > > > Coverity issue: 357719 > > Fixes: da138cd47e06 ("net/octeontx2: handle port reconfigure") > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <[email protected]> > > --- > > 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? Thanks, Yunjian > > > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > } > > -- > > 2.23.0 > > > >
