On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:44 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:03:37PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> > Ugh, exactly why I was motivated to attempt to preclude this with new
> > core infrastructure that attempted to fix this centrally [1]. Remove
> > the possibility of "oth
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:03:37PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Ugh, exactly why I was motivated to attempt to preclude this with new
> core infrastructure that attempted to fix this centrally [1]. Remove
> the possibility of "others" getting this wrong. However after my
> initial idea bounced of
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:12 AM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 02:01:56PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > If cdev_device_add() fails then the allocation performed by
> > dev_set_name() is leaked. Use put_device(), not open coded release, for
> > device_add() failures.
> >
> > T
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 02:01:56PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> If cdev_device_add() fails then the allocation performed by
> dev_set_name() is leaked. Use put_device(), not open coded release, for
> device_add() failures.
>
> The comment is obsolete because direct err_id failures need not worry
>
If cdev_device_add() fails then the allocation performed by
dev_set_name() is leaked. Use put_device(), not open coded release, for
device_add() failures.
The comment is obsolete because direct err_id failures need not worry
about the device being live.
The release method expects the percpu_ref i
5 matches
Mail list logo
