[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20f37865-5af3-5fb9-8b8f-91f9464e4af3@web.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 18:54:41 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Dejin Zheng <zhengdejin5@...il.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] console: newport_con: fix an issue about leak related
system resources
> The corresponding system resources were not released then.
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Subject:
[PATCH v4] console: newport_con: Fix incomplete releasing of system resources
Change description:
* A call of the function do_take_over_console() can fail here.
The corresponding system resources were not released then.
Thus add a call of iounmap() and release_mem_region()
together with the check of a failure predicate.
* Add also a call of release_mem_region() for the completion
of resource clean-up on device removal.
It can be nicer if all patch reviewers (including me) will be explicitly specified
as recipients for such messages, can't it?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists