On 2/27/2017 7:51 AM, Rasesh Mody wrote:
> Set pointers to NULL after freeing the allocations on ecore_resc_free().
>
> Fixes: 26ae839d06e9 ("qede: add DCBX support")
> Fixes: ec94dbc57362 ("qede: add base driver")
>
> Signed-off-by: Rasesh Mody <rasesh.m...@cavium.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_dcbx.c | 2 +-
> drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_dev.c | 4 ++--
> drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_spq.c | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_dcbx.c
> b/drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_dcbx.c
> index 7380fd8..9ce6dc4 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_dcbx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_dcbx.c
> @@ -914,7 +914,7 @@ enum _ecore_status_t ecore_dcbx_info_alloc(struct
> ecore_hwfn *p_hwfn)
> void ecore_dcbx_info_free(struct ecore_hwfn *p_hwfn,
> struct ecore_dcbx_info *p_dcbx_info)
> {
> - OSAL_FREE(p_hwfn->p_dev, p_hwfn->p_dcbx_info);
> + p_hwfn->p_dcbx_info = OSAL_NULL;
Is replacing free with "NULL assignment" intentional?
>From commit log and other updates in this patch, intention looks like
setting pointers to NULL after freeing them.
> }
>
> static void ecore_dcbx_update_protocol_data(struct protocol_dcb_data *p_data,
> diff --git a/drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_dev.c
> b/drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_dev.c
> index 0518fc7..15051b6 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_dev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/qede/base/ecore_dev.c
> @@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ void ecore_resc_free(struct ecore_dev *p_dev)
> p_dev->fw_data = OSAL_NULL;
>
> OSAL_FREE(p_dev, p_dev->reset_stats);
> + p_dev->reset_stats = OSAL_NULL;
Since already a macro used for free, does it make sense to make NULL
assignment part of macro?
