[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 23:12:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm: add missing of_node_put
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Arnd,
>
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 23:02:15 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > The same for_each_child_of_node() loop has three 'return' statements'
> > aside from the 'break' statement here. I think you should change your
> > semantic patch to cover both cases.
>
> I think Julia's semantic patch covers both cases, but only the cases
> where there is one break or return (though I have essentially zero
> Coccinelle knowledge, this is all based on guessing looking at the
> semantic patch in the cover letter).
Normally, it should be OK with lots of returns. And contrary to my
previous email, even with return;. Will check on it.
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists