> > If there's *any* error, it'll check the pointer, if it's non-NULL, > > it'll call the destructor. If kzalloc() fails, the pointer will be > > NULL, there's no double-free bug. *every* subdev is written this way > > to avoid duplicating cleanup logic. > Actually, gm20b_clk_new_speedo0() may have a bug here if kzalloc() > fails as it doesn't overwrite the previous pointer from > gm20b_clk_new(). That whole ctor() sequence is written a little > strangely. >
It's clear to me, thank your for your explanation! As for gm20b_clk_new_speedo0(), I think its bug pattern is not very clear. Maybe we should keep it until we find an use chain that could lead to a bug. Regards, Dinghao
