From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754062AbXABNzf (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 08:55:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754851AbXABNze (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 08:55:34 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:42649 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754062AbXABNze (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 08:55:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200701021238.36297.m.kozlowski@tuxland.pl> References: <200701021238.36297.m.kozlowski@tuxland.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1220f3e52f791ff8871ca9328b027a5a@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc: vio of_node_put cleanup Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:55:40 +0100 To: Mariusz Kozlowski X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > static void __devinit vio_dev_release(struct device *dev) > { > - if (dev->archdata.of_node) { > - /* XXX should free TCE table */ > - of_node_put(dev->archdata.of_node); > - } > + /* XXX should free TCE table */ > + of_node_put(dev->archdata.of_node); > kfree(to_vio_dev(dev)); > } The comment used to be inside the "if" block, is this change correct? [And, do we want all these changes anyway? I don't care either way, both sides have their pros and their cons -- just asking :-) ] Segher