On 10/03/2015 10:54 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 6:20 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>
>>> On 10/3/2015 5:25 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>
>>>> To prevent memory leakage on unbinding, add missing kfree calls.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstr...@baylibre.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> net/dsa/dsa.c | 5 ++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa.c b/net/dsa/dsa.c
>>>> index c59fa5d..12cec40 100644
>>>> --- a/net/dsa/dsa.c
>>>> +++ b/net/dsa/dsa.c
>>>> @@ -914,8 +914,10 @@ static void dsa_remove_dst(struct dsa_switch_tree
>>>> *dst)
>>>> for (i = 0; i < dst->pd->nr_chips; i++) {
>>>> struct dsa_switch *ds = dst->ds[i];
>>>>
>>>> - if (ds != NULL)
>>>> + if (ds != NULL) {
>>>
>>> Didn;t scripts/checkpatch.pl complain here? just if (ds) is preferred
>>> in the networking code.
>>>
>>> MBR, Sergei
>>>
>> Yes,
>>
>> But I considered the cosmetic changes are not the subject of this serie.
>
> Formally, all the patches should be checkpatch-clean...
>
>> Neil
>
> MBR, Sergei
>
Sure,
How should I handle this case ?
A separate patch with the cosmetic change before the kfree addition ?
Neil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
