[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <A483D7C9-07FD-40E8-93F5-5688AB6C9040@arista.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 17:39:50 -0800
From: Daniel Stodden <dns@...sta.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Kurt Schwemmer <kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: switchtec: Fix an error handling path in
switchtec_pci_probe()
> On Dec 28, 2023, at 3:56 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> [+to Daniel, can you take a look? If you like this, I'd like to
> squash it into df25461119d9 and credit Christophe since that's not
> upstream yet]
Thanks very much for fixing this, Christophe.
The fix looks correct to me. If it can still fold into the previous change, all the better.
Best,
Daniel
PS: without trying to complicate this thread, does one know idr.[ch] well enough to state
whether ida_free() could have gone into stdev_release()? The way the two idr_free calls have
been placed looks intentional. But stdev_release would look more obvious + cleaner to me.
Was only starting to wonder while reviewing the err_put side of this patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists