[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <85cb5ed9-66ba-3461-dd56-017b89ba70ce@web.de>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 20:55:48 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/tinydrm: Fix memroy leak in hx8357d_probe
…
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/hx8357d.c
> @@ -232,44 +232,49 @@ static int hx8357d_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
…
> + goto free_dbidev;
>
> spi_set_drvdata(spi, drm);
I got another development concern here.
Can it make sense to pass the variable “dbidev” instead of “drm”?
…
> +free_dbidev:
> + kfree(dbidev);
…
I became curious if there is a need for such a memory release at another place.
How do you think about to add this function call also to the implementation
of the function “hx8357d_remove”?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists