pf: Simplify cleanup

[kp]

Summary

We can now counter_u64_free(NULL), so remove the checks.

MFC after: 1 week
Sponsored-by: Rubicon Communications, LLC ("Netgate")

[melifaro]

Can counter ptr really be NULL is these cases? If yes, I'd rather retain the existing checks as they indicate that this a valid possibility.

Also, counter(9) man page says nothing about the free(NULL) use case.

[kp]

In D29190#653630, @melifaro wrote:

Can counter ptr really be NULL is these cases? If yes, I'd rather retain the existing checks as they indicate that this a valid possibility.

It can happen, but really only if we fail to allocate memory (see line 520-521).

Also, counter(9) man page says nothing about the free(NULL) use case.

Until D29189 it couldn't handle that. This commit builds on top of that.

[donner]

In D29190#653711, @kp wrote:

Until D29189 it couldn't handle that. This commit builds on top of that.

May you please stack them together to make this dependency explicit?

[melifaro]

In D29190#653711, @kp wrote:

In D29190#653630, @melifaro wrote:

Can counter ptr really be NULL is these cases? If yes, I'd rather retain the existing checks as they indicate that this a valid possibility.

It can happen, but really only if we fail to allocate memory (see line 520-521).

Also, counter(9) man page says nothing about the free(NULL) use case.

Until D29189 it couldn't handle that. This commit builds on top of that.

Yep :-) What I'm saying is that the man page should also be updated to reflect the code changes.

[kp]

In D29190#653965, @melifaro wrote:

Yep :-) What I'm saying is that the man page should also be updated to reflect the code changes.

Good point. How does D29215 look?