linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fsi: Fix device refcount leak in i2cr_scom

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0bc22da4-8e86-4e15-9aa6-38cb9d9f6b4a@web.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 09:50:43 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: make24@...as.ac.cn, linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
 Ninad Palsule <ninad@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsi: Fix device refcount leak in i2cr_scom_probe

> This patch fixes a device reference count leak …

Would a corresponding imperative wording become helpful for an improved change description?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.18-rc4#n94

Would a summary phrase like “Fix reference count leak in i2cr_scom_probe()” be nicer?

Regards,
Markus