[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpoqm_n-WrQq+77wStCxVMU1ysQthStReK3kS3MaMaYSUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 14:31:42 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
Ajay Gupta <ajayg@...dia.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Haotien Hsu <haotienh@...dia.com>, Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Utkarsh Patel <utkarsh.h.patel@...el.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: typec: ucsi: ccg: Adjustments for common code in
two functions
On Thu, 26 Sept 2024 at 14:27, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 02:20:19PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Sept 2024 at 14:12, Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 12:26:24AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > but in any case the thing is that kfree()
> > > probably can be done using __free(). Then PM runtime handled differently.
> >
> > That's a separate cleanup in my opinion.
>
> Yes and for that we do not need an intermediate change, right?
I don't have a strong opinion here (and I don't feel a strong need to
move existing code into using cleanup.h just for the sake of it).
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists