On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 12:00:32PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 02:03:14PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > @@ -704,6 +704,7 @@ static void pinctrl_generic_free_groups(struct > > > pinctrl_dev *pctldev) > > > radix_tree_delete(&pctldev->pin_group_tree, indices[i]); > > > devm_kfree(pctldev->dev, group); > > > } > > > + kfree(indices); > > > > We use devm_kfree for other allocations done here, maybe we can just > > have the same thing here? We would be consistant, and we would still > > keep the resource tracking. > > It doesn't make any sense to use the managed functions from the > release functions and if you're always matching devm_kmalloc() with > devm_kfree(), the only thing it'd do is confusing its readers.
I wouldn't say that being able to recover and free whatever memory leak we might have not making sense, but ok. That was one of the options, let's discard it. The other one is: refactor the rest of the allocations so that you don't have a mix of devm_kmalloc / devm_kfree and kmalloc / kfree for the same purpose in the same function. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
