[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54e83ce6-0f9d-45c2-92c7-a41fdb812314@web.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:55:31 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Yongzhi Liu <hyperlyzcs@...il.com>,
GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@...vell.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Nilesh Javali <njavali@...vell.com>, Saurav Kashyap <skashyap@...vell.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...cle.com>, huntazhang@...cent.com,
jitxie@...cent.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] scsi: qla2xxx: Fix double free of fcport in
qla24xx_els_dcmd_iocb
* I would usually expect a corresponding cover letter for patch series.
* Would you like to add parentheses to the function name in the summary phrase?
> When dma_alloc_coherent() or qla2x00_start_sp() return an error,
call returned?
> the callback function qla2x00_els_dcmd_sp_free in qla2x00_sp_release
> will call qla2x00_free_fcport() to kfree fcport. We shouldn't call
free “fcport”?
> qla2x00_free_fcport() again in the error handling path.
paths?
> Fix this by cleaning the duplicate qla2x00_free_fcport() calls up.
Would the wording “Thus delete duplicate qla2x00_free_fcport() calls.” be a bit nicer?
…
> ---
> V2 -> V3: Improve patch summary and provide a patch serises with two separate update steps
…
* How do you think about to avoid the repetition of version identifiers
(according to the selected enumeration style)?
* You would probably like to avoid another typo here.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists