[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3eef0167-5dd3-443d-80aa-f450a75550df@web.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 18:43:27 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...d.be>,
Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ubi: ubi_init: Fix missed ubiblock cleanup in
error handling path
…
> Since ubiblock_init() registers notifier and invokes notification
> functions, so we can move it after ubi_init_attach() to fix the problem.
I find this change description improvable.
Would an imperative wording be also more desirable here?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists