[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62ff53e5-32d0-0440-045d-881350b2e6cd@web.de>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 12:09:06 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
open-iscsi@...glegroups.com
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Leech <cleech@...hat.com>,
"James E. J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>, Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Fix reference count leak in
iscsi_boot_create_kobj()
> kobject_init_and_add() should be handled when it return an error,
> because kobject_init_and_add() takes reference even when it fails.
I find this wording approach improvable.
> Previous commit "b8eb718348b8" fixed a similar problem.
I suggest to omit this information from the commit message.
> Thus replace calling kfree() by calling kobject_put().
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Thus replace a call of the function “kfree” by “kobject_put”
because of using kernel objects in the proper way.
Please take another look also at the message field “To”.
Which recipients should be specified there first?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists