[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220614072505.GH2146@kadam>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:25:05 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@....de>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] p54: Fix an error handling path in p54spi_probe()
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:57:25PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > ---
> > > v2: reduce diffstat and take advantage on the fact that release_firmware()
> > > checks for NULL
> >
> > Heh, ok ;) . Now that I see it, the "ret = p54_parse_firmware(...); ... "
> > could have been replaced with "return p54_parse_firmware(dev, priv->firmware);"
> > so the p54spi.c could shrink another 5-6 lines.
> >
> > I think leaving p54spi_request_firmware() callee to deal with
> > releasing the firmware
> > in the error case as well is nicer because it gets rid of a "but in
> > this case" complexity.
>
>
> Take the one you consider being the best one.
>
> If it deserves a v3 to axe some lines of code, I can do it but, as said
> previously, v1 is for me the cleaner and more future proof.
>
I prefered v1 but with s/firmaware/firmware/...
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists