lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] drivers/misc: at2x: use devm_kzalloc() to make cleanup paths simpler
    From
    On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Nikolay Balandin
    <n.a.balandin@gmail.com> wrote:
    > From: Nikolay Balandin <nbalandin@dev.rtsoft.ru>

    Please, at least small commit message.


    > --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
    > +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
    > @@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
    > num_addresses = DIV_ROUND_UP(chip.byte_len,
    > (chip.flags & AT24_FLAG_ADDR16) ? 65536 : 256);
    >
    > - at24 = kzalloc(sizeof(struct at24_data) +
    > + at24 = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(struct at24_data) +
    > num_addresses * sizeof(struct i2c_client *), GFP_KERNEL);
    > if (!at24) {
    > err = -ENOMEM;
    > @@ -596,10 +596,12 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
    > at24->write_max = write_max;
    >
    > /* buffer (data + address at the beginning) */
    > - at24->writebuf = kmalloc(write_max + 2, GFP_KERNEL);
    > + at24->writebuf = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev,
    > + write_max + 2, GFP_KERNEL);
    > +
    > if (!at24->writebuf) {
    > err = -ENOMEM;
    > - goto err_struct;
    > + goto err_out;

    Return directly.

    > }
    > } else {
    > dev_warn(&client->dev,
    > @@ -647,10 +649,6 @@ err_clients:
    > for (i = 1; i < num_addresses; i++)
    > if (at24->client[i])
    > i2c_unregister_device(at24->client[i]);
    > -
    > - kfree(at24->writebuf);
    > -err_struct:
    > - kfree(at24);
    > err_out:

    Remove this label as well.

    > dev_dbg(&client->dev, "probe error %d\n", err);

    I think you may remove this [useless] message as well.

    > return err;


    > --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
    > +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c

    > @@ -455,7 +456,6 @@ static int at25_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
    > return 0;
    > fail:
    > dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "probe err %d\n", err);
    > - kfree(at25);
    > return err;

    I believe there is no harm to remove 'fail' branch.

    --
    With Best Regards,
    Andy Shevchenko


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-05-28 18:01    [W:6.608 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site