Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 4 Dec 2013 02:38:24 -0500 | From | "Chen, Gong" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device_register failure |
| |
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:01:50PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:01:50 +0100 > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> > To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Levente Kurusa <levex@linux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, "H. > Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org, EDAC > <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device_register failure > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) > > Can you please fix your > > Mail-Followup-To: > > header? It is impossible to reply to your emails without fiddling with > the To: and Cc: by hand which gets very annoying over time.
I add some configs in my muttrc. Hope it works.
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:23:30PM -0500, Chen, Gong wrote: > > I have some concerns about it. if device_register is failed, it will > > backtraces all kinds of conditions automatically, including put_device > > definately. So do we really need an extra put_device when it returns > > failure? > > Do you mean the "done:" label in device_add() which does put_device() > and which gets called by device_register()? >
Not only. I noticed that another put_device under label "Error:". [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |