Hello.
On 10/6/2015 10:25 AM, 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 ?
No, that would classify as a cleanup, and cleanups shouldn't be queued
before fixes (should be the other way around). Just do this in this same
patch, possibly mentioning in the change log.
Neil
MBR, Sergei
--
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/
