[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bcbcc9ec-36c7-c0e9-f4e0-634c1475728c@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:04:45 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-Savage: Less function calls in savage_bci_cmdbuf() after
error detection
>> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:28:58 +0200
>>
>> The kfree() function was called in a few cases by the
>> savage_bci_cmdbuf() function during error handling
>> even if a passed variable contained a null pointer.
>>
>> Adjust jump targets according to the Linux coding style convention.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
>
> Not sure this is worth it, I'll pass. Patch 1 merged.
Unfortunately, it seems that this selection of only one update step
from this small patch series has got unwanted consequences.
Will the update suggestion “[patch] drm/savage: dereferencing an error pointer”
by Dan Carpenter (from today) trigger further software development discussions?
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9372127/
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<20161012062227.GU12841@...nda>
Will an update step like “[PATCH 2/2] GPU-DRM-Savage: Less function calls in
savage_bci_cmdbuf() after error detection” (from 2016-08-18) become worth
for related consideratons once more?
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9289183/
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<c97563c0-d463-8b15-5956-26d93641a54f@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists