[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGngYiXjJtGNLAV_jvoj2NsjD+UCnK_Q+ZssgSwAukYAXdgE2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:30:22 -0500
From: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, mark.rutland@....com,
Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
treding@...dia.com, David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
noralf@...nnes.org, johan@...nel.org,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, michal.vokac@...ft.com,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, john.garry@...wei.com,
geert+renesas@...der.be, robin.murphy@....com,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
sebastien.bourdelin@...oirfairelinux.com, icenowy@...c.io,
Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@...il.com>, maxime.ripard@...tlin.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/6] fieldbus_dev: add Fieldbus Device subsystem.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 7:18 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > +static DEFINE_IDA(fieldbus_ida);
>
> You forget to destroy this ida structure when the module is removed.
> It's a common thing to get wrong :(
>
But fieldbus_ida is allocated on the heap. So as long as calls to
ida_simple_get() and ida_simple_remove() are matched, there
should be no resource leak?
What am I missing?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists