Re: [PATCH v3] i3c: fix refcount inconsistency in i3c_master_register

Re: [PATCH v3] i3c: fix refcount inconsistency in i3c_master_register

[Markus Elfring]

> In `i3c_master_register`, a possible refcount inconsistency has been
> identified, causing possible resource leak.
…

* Can it be preferred to refer to the term “reference count”?

* Would it be helpful to append parentheses to function names at more places?


Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH v3] i3c: fix refcount inconsistency in i3c_master_register

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 05:07:38PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > In `i3c_master_register`, a possible refcount inconsistency has been
> > identified, causing possible resource leak.
> …
> 
> * Can it be preferred to refer to the term “reference count”?
> 
> * Would it be helpful to append parentheses to function names at more places?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Markus


Hi,

This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.

Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list.  I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore.  Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.

Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all.  The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback.  Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot