[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4cf93f73-5bea-9748-f97b-99a6efe9ea20@web.de>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 07:45:38 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Fix reference count leak in pci_create_slot()
Please add a prefix to the patch subject.
> kobject_init_and_add() takes reference even when it fails.
I suggest to extend this description another bit.
Which object is affected here?
> If this function returns an error, kobject_put() must be called to
> properly clean up the memory associated with the object.
Such a copy from the function description of this programming interface
can be helpful.
> Thus, when call of kobject_init_and_add() fail,
I propose to avoid the repetition of this condition.
> we should call kobject_put() instead of kfree().
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Replace a call of the function “kfree” by “kobject_put”
because of using kernel objects in the proper way.
> Previous commit "b8eb718348b8" fixed a similar problem.
I wonder if such information is really relevant for the commit message.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists