>> * Is freeing and releasing an item a duplicate operation anyhow?
>
> You're missing the point. afs_put_sysnames() does release the things the
> object points to (ie. the content),
It is possible to distinguish the release of system resources for further items.
> but not the object itself.
Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Fix afs_put_sysnames() to actually free the specified afs_sysnames
> > object after its reference count has been decreased to zero and its
> > contents have been released.
>
> * How do you think about to omit the word "Fix" because of the provided tag?
> Perhaps something like:
>
> Fix afs_put_sysnames() to actually free the specified afs_sysnames
> object after its reference count has been decreased to zero and its
> contents have been released.
* How do you think about to omit the word "Fix" because of the provided tag?
*
Markus Elfring wrote:
> > sysnames should be freed after refcnt being decreased to zero in
> > afs_put_sysnames().
>
> How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
>
>Release the sysnames object after its reference counter was decreased
>to zero.
I would say "reference
> sysnames should be freed after refcnt being decreased to zero in
> afs_put_sysnames().
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Release the sysnames object after its reference counter was decreased
to zero.
Will it matter to mention the size of the data structure
sysnames should be freed after refcnt being decreased to zero in
afs_put_sysnames().
Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng
Cc: # v4.17+
Fixes: 6f8880d8e681557 ("afs: Implement @sys substitution handling")
---
fs/afs/proc.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/fs/afs/proc.c b/fs/afs/proc.c
6 matches
Mail list logo
