Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:25:16 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Ed Schouten <ed@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r189066 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <20090226232352.S53478@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <200902261212.n1QCCYI6027315@svn.freebsd.org> References: <200902261212.n1QCCYI6027315@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Ed Schouten wrote: > Author: ed > Date: Thu Feb 26 12:12:34 2009 > New Revision: 189066 > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/189066 > > Log: > Remove redundant assignment of `p'. > > `p' is already initialized with `td->td_proc'. Because td is always > curthread, it is safe to initialize it without any locks. > > Found by: LLVM's scan-build > > Modified: > head/sys/kern/subr_prf.c > > Modified: head/sys/kern/subr_prf.c > ============================================================================== > --- head/sys/kern/subr_prf.c Thu Feb 26 12:06:46 2009 (r189065) > +++ head/sys/kern/subr_prf.c Thu Feb 26 12:12:34 2009 (r189066) > @@ -137,7 +137,6 @@ uprintf(const char *fmt, ...) > return (0); > > sx_slock(&proctree_lock); > - p = td->td_proc; > PROC_LOCK(p); > if ((p->p_flag & P_CONTROLT) == 0) { > PROC_UNLOCK(p); I think this one is wrong. You should probably have removed the assignment from declaration time as we are checking for td != NULL just above that so it could possibly be a NULL pointer deref in the initial assigment or the NULL check is redundant. -- Bjoern A. Zeeb The greatest risk is not taking one.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090226232352.S53478>