[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d8d1ee94-ee95-461f-a5d8-040bb2a1cfee@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:46:12 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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 Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 12:57:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 09:59:46PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > 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).
I don't see how checking the return value impacts that? The management
via devm is still there either way.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists