[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <658235548ca6c_2edf029490@iweiny-mobl.notmuch>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:29:08 -0800
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Smita Koralahalli
<Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>, Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@...wei.com>,
Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, Alison Schofield
<alison.schofield@...el.com>, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, "Ard
Biesheuvel" <ardb@...nel.org>, <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas
<bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cxl/memdev: Register for and process CPER events
Dan Williams wrote:
> Ira Weiny wrote:
> [..]
> > > and drop the = NULL above.
> >
> > Done.
>
> The NULL assignment was more about making it clear that
> __free(pci_dev_put) will take no action until the pdev is acquired.
> Otherwise, any future refactoring that introduces a 'return' before
> @pdev is acquired needs to be careful to assign @pdev to NULL. So, just
> include it in the declaration more as a __free() declaration style issue
> than a correctness issue.
I think he meant the assignment to cxlds. At least that is the NULL
assignment I took out.
Ira
Powered by blists - more mailing lists