Hello, On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 02:03:14PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > @@ -704,6 +704,7 @@ static void pinctrl_generic_free_groups(struct > > pinctrl_dev *pctldev) > > radix_tree_delete(&pctldev->pin_group_tree, indices[i]); > > devm_kfree(pctldev->dev, group); > > } > > + kfree(indices); > > We use devm_kfree for other allocations done here, maybe we can just > have the same thing here? We would be consistant, and we would still > keep the resource tracking.
It doesn't make any sense to use the managed functions from the release functions and if you're always matching devm_kmalloc() with devm_kfree(), the only thing it'd do is confusing its readers. And the function in question just looks weird to me - give up on freeing resources if memory allocation fails? And why call devm_kfree() on objects which are being released anyway? Or if the group can be released w/o the device being detached, why use devm allocations on the members at all? As for removal, can't it just call radix_tree_iter_delete() while iterating? Why allocate memory to iterate and store all indices and to look them up again and delete them? Thanks. -- tejun
