| To: | julia@diku.dk |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/8] arch/mips/txx9: introduce missing kfree, iounmap |
| From: | Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Date: | Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:45:25 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.64.0909150701170.11392@ask.diku.dk> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20090914.003321.160496287.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0909132113520.31000@ask.diku.dk> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0909150701170.11392@ask.diku.dk> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:03:42 +0200 (CEST), Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk> wrote:
> > +out_pdev:
> > + platform_device_put(pdev);
> > +out_gpio:
> > + gpio_remove(&iocled->chip);
>
> I just noticed that the prototype of gpio_remove has __must_check
> I don't think there is anything to check here; since the thing is not
> fully initialized here, it is unlikely to be busy. Should there be (void)
> in front of it?
The void casting does not silence the warning. How about this?
if (gpiochip_remove(&iocled->chip))
return;
In general, memory leak would be less serious than crash or data
corruption ;)
---
Atsushi Nemoto
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/8] arch/mips/txx9: introduce missing kfree, iounmap, Julia Lawall |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/8] arch/mips/txx9: introduce missing kfree, iounmap, Julia Lawall |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/8] arch/mips/txx9: introduce missing kfree, iounmap, Julia Lawall |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/8] arch/mips/txx9: introduce missing kfree, iounmap, Julia Lawall |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |