[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 02/21] net/qede/base: fix to set pointers to NULL after freeing

[Ferruh Yigit]

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.mody at 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?