From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750739AbVHZHcW (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 03:32:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750777AbVHZHcV (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 03:32:21 -0400 Received: from smtp-105-friday.noc.nerim.net ([62.4.17.105]:22035 "EHLO mallaury.nerim.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750739AbVHZHcV (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 03:32:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:32:14 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/hwmon/*: kfree() correct pointers Message-Id: <20050826093214.415f1987.khali@linux-fr.org> In-Reply-To: <20050825235354.10376.qmail@lwn.net> References: <20050826000231.35b97af9.khali@linux-fr.org> <20050825235354.10376.qmail@lwn.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jonathan, > > Already fixed in Greg's i2c tree and -mm for quite some time now... > > So it is. The comment says, however, that "the existing code works > somewhat by accident." In the case of the 9240 driver, however, the > existing code demonstrably does not work - it oopsed on me. I too did notice that the adm9240 case was worse than the four other ones back then, but when I tried to get it to crash, it never did. This is the reason why I did not push this patch upstream faster. I wonder why it now does oops on you. I also believe that this patch was somewhat misnamed. It is not related to the new hwmon class, but jut happened to change the same part of these five drivers. With a better name, the patch would most probably have been selected by Greg in the last batch of i2c patches to Linus. > The patch in Greg's tree looks fine (it's a straightforward fix, after > all); I wouldn't call it straightforward, but it certainly has been reviewed and tested well enough by now to be considered safe. > I'd recommend that it be merged before 2.6.13. Fine with me. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare