[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aEgBkROmEV2df4rA@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:57:37 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Vicentiu Galanopulo <vicentiu.galanopulo@...ote-tech.co.uk>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Han Xu <han.xu@....com>,
Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
Yogesh Gaur <yogeshgaur.83@...il.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>, Andrew Davis <afd@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] spi: spi-nxp-fspi: check return value of
devm_mutex_init()
On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 09:59:46PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 10:38:37PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Even if it's not critical, the avoidance of checking the error code
> > from devm_mutex_init() call today diminishes the point of using devm
> > variant of it. Tomorrow it may even leak something.
>
> I don't understand the comment about leaking here? We might end up with
> an unitialised mutex but how would we leak anything?
In case if the mutex_init() allocates something that needs to be freed
(in the future).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists