[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1554823996.26196.48.camel@lca.pw>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 11:33:16 -0400
From: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] acpi/hmat: fix memory leaks in hmat_init()
On Tue, 2019-04-09 at 16:54 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Fewer jumps are easier to follow in general, so avoiding ones that can
> be avoided is helpful.
>
> I'm not buying the argument about more code line changes needed if the
> function name changes. It's meaningless.
>
> And if you check the return value of acpi_get_table() for SRAT after
> calling acpi_put_table(tbl), you will only need the out_free label, if
> I'm not mistaken.
I don't really understand this.
status = acpi_get_table(ACPI_SIG_SRAT
acpi_put_table(tbl);
status = acpi_get_table(ACPI_SIG_HMAT
If acpi_get_table(ACPI_SIG_SRAT failed, there is no point calling
acpi_put_table(), so what is the point checking return value of acpi_get_table()
for SRAT after acpi_put_table() ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists