[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZYxXTVpLfI-mgxF4@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 18:56:45 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cocci@...ia.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmc_spi: Adjust error handling in mmc_spi_probe()
On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 12:50:50PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 12:23:20 +0100
>
> The kfree() function was called in one case by
> the mmc_spi_probe() function during error handling
> even if the passed variable contained a null pointer.
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> * Thus return directly after a call of the function “kmalloc” failed
> at the beginning.
>
> * Move an error code assignment into an if branch.
How is this one better?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists