linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ppc: vio of_node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1220f3e52f791ff8871ca9328b027a5a@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:55:40 +0100
From:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>
Cc:	paulus@...ba.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc: vio of_node_put cleanup

>  static void __devinit vio_dev_release(struct device *dev)
>  {
> -	if (dev->archdata.of_node) {
> -		/* XXX should free TCE table */
> -		of_node_put(dev->archdata.of_node);
> -	}
> +	/* XXX should free TCE table */
> +	of_node_put(dev->archdata.of_node);
>  	kfree(to_vio_dev(dev));
>  }

The comment used to be inside the "if" block, is this
change correct?

[And, do we want all these changes anyway?  I don't care
either way, both sides have their pros and their cons --
just asking :-) ]


Segher

-
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/