On 2018-12-04 15:36, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 02:11:33PM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Ho hmm. Had another look at this patch, or rather, the context of the
>> patch so not really related, but...
>>
>> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>>> devm_kstrdup() may
On 2018-12-04 15:36, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 02:11:33PM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Ho hmm. Had another look at this patch, or rather, the context of the
>> patch so not really related, but...
>>
>> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>>> devm_kstrdup() may
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 02:11:33PM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Ho hmm. Had another look at this patch, or rather, the context of the
> patch so not really related, but...
>
> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
> > Thus
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 02:11:33PM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Ho hmm. Had another look at this patch, or rather, the context of the
> patch so not really related, but...
>
> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
> > Thus
On 2018-12-04 15:25, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:49:11PM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2018-12-04 13:13, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:16:59AM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
Hi!
This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick
On 2018-12-04 15:25, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:49:11PM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2018-12-04 13:13, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:16:59AM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
Hi!
This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:49:11PM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2018-12-04 13:13, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:16:59AM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick below.
> >>
> >> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:49:11PM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2018-12-04 13:13, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:16:59AM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick below.
> >>
> >> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc
Ho hmm. Had another look at this patch, or rather, the context of the
patch so not really related, but...
On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
> Thus using name, value is unsafe without being checked. As
>
Ho hmm. Had another look at this patch, or rather, the context of the
patch so not really related, but...
On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
> Thus using name, value is unsafe without being checked. As
>
On 2018-12-04 13:13, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:16:59AM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick below.
>>
>> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>>> devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation
On 2018-12-04 13:13, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:16:59AM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick below.
>>
>> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>>> devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:16:59AM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick below.
>
> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
> > Thus using name, value is unsafe without
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:16:59AM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick below.
>
> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
> > Thus using name, value is unsafe without
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:16:59AM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick below.
>
> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
> > Thus using name, value is unsafe without
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:16:59AM +, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick below.
>
> On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
> > Thus using name, value is unsafe without
Hi!
This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick below.
On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
> Thus using name, value is unsafe without being checked. As
> i2c_demux_pinctrl_probe() can return -ENOMEM in other
Hi!
This patch looks like a good idea. However, a nitpick below.
On 2018-12-01 11:01, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
> Thus using name, value is unsafe without being checked. As
> i2c_demux_pinctrl_probe() can return -ENOMEM in other
devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
Thus using name, value is unsafe without being checked. As
i2c_demux_pinctrl_probe() can return -ENOMEM in other cases
a dev_err() message is included to make the failure location
clear.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire
Fixes:
devm_kstrdup() may return NULL if internal allocation failed.
Thus using name, value is unsafe without being checked. As
i2c_demux_pinctrl_probe() can return -ENOMEM in other cases
a dev_err() message is included to make the failure location
clear.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire
Fixes:
20 matches
Mail list logo