[PATCH RESEND 0/1] Revert "spi/doc: spi_master_put must be followed up by kfree"

[PATCH RESEND 0/1] Revert "spi/doc: spi_master_put must be followed up by kfree"

[Alexey Klimov]

Hi all,

During review of new SPI drivers I tried to understand connection
between comment "calling spi_master_put() and kfree() to prevent a
memory leak" for spi_alloc_master() in spi.c and why no driver calls
kfree() on error path. Looks like Uwe added this comment and later I
found patch from Guenter that reverted this comment but spi-imx.c was
not fixed for that time. Later in 2013 spi-imx was fixed. Is it
correct time right now to fix comment?

I tried to save authorship of patch from Guenter, added field "From"
and kept signed-off-by and cc. I hope i did it correctly in patch
(sorry for possible inconvenience).
Also marked it as RESEND since it's resend of original patch from 2012 year.

Best regards,
Alexey Klimov

Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/1] Revert "spi/doc: spi_master_put must be followed up by kfree"

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 01:47:21AM +0300, Alexey Klimov wrote:

> During review of new SPI drivers I tried to understand connection
> between comment "calling spi_master_put() and kfree() to prevent a
> memory leak" for spi_alloc_master() in spi.c and why no driver calls
> kfree() on error path. Looks like Uwe added this comment and later I
> found patch from Guenter that reverted this comment but spi-imx.c was
> not fixed for that time. Later in 2013 spi-imx was fixed. Is it
> correct time right now to fix comment?

I'm sorry but I'm not clear what you're talking about here as there's
missing context...  where is this comment you're talking about?

In general please don't send cover letters for single patches, either
add the content to the commit message or put it after the --- if it's
administrative stuff (like SubmittingPatches says).

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/1] Revert "spi/doc: spi_master_put must be followed up by kfree"

[Alexey Klimov]

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 01:47:21AM +0300, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>
>> During review of new SPI drivers I tried to understand connection
>> between comment "calling spi_master_put() and kfree() to prevent a
>> memory leak" for spi_alloc_master() in spi.c and why no driver calls
>> kfree() on error path. Looks like Uwe added this comment and later I
>> found patch from Guenter that reverted this comment but spi-imx.c was
>> not fixed for that time. Later in 2013 spi-imx was fixed. Is it
>> correct time right now to fix comment?
>
> I'm sorry but I'm not clear what you're talking about here as there's
> missing context...  where is this comment you're talking about?
>
> In general please don't send cover letters for single patches, either
> add the content to the commit message or put it after the --- if it's
> administrative stuff (like SubmittingPatches says).

Okay, understand (about formatting of subject, RESEND noise and no
cover letter for single patches). Just never send reverts before
(especially when it's re-send from 2012 year).
It's easy to see comment in patch with subject: [PATCH RESEND 1/1]
Revert "spi/doc: spi_master_put must be followed up by kfree"
It's in drivers/spi/spi.c, line 1440 in tag v4.2 released ~ 5 days
ago. Comment for function spi_alloc_master().

Sorry. Right now I see how I screwed up. Should I re-send it as single
patch with all info included (marking as RESEND)?

-- 
Best regards,
Klimov Alexey

Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/1] Revert "spi/doc: spi_master_put must be followed up by kfree"

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 264 bytes --]

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 03:22:43AM +0300, Alexey Klimov wrote:

> Sorry. Right now I see how I screwed up. Should I re-send it as single
> patch with all info included (marking as RESEND)?

No, it's OK - the patch itself was clear enough and I already applied it.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]