Hello Mark, On 07/15/2015 05:52 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 02:46:25PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On 07/15/2015 01:27 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> using _regulator_get() I think. A separate, rarely used, path is likely >>> to have this sort of issue. > >> Exactly, do you agree then that a try_module_get() is missing in >> set_supply()? > >> It is OK if I add that in the same patch in v2 or do you prefer that to be >> in a separate patch? > > A separate patch would be better, or even better would be something that > just replaces everything there with use of the same code path as _get() > (thanks for volunteering!) but just adding the try_module_get() is fine > for now. >
I already posted a v2 of the series which adds a try_module_get() as a separate patch but I'll add to my TODO list at factoring out both code paths as a follow-up. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
