From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753125AbYLAVot (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:44:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751471AbYLAVok (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:44:40 -0500 Received: from lixom.net ([66.141.50.11]:48446 "EHLO mail.lixom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750980AbYLAVok (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:44:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:57:31 -0600 From: Olof Johansson To: Julia Lawall Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/mtd/nand/pasemi_nand.c: Add missing pci_dev_put Message-ID: <20081201215731.GA23768@lixom.net> References: <20081201174327.GA21274@lixom.net> <20081201180812.GA21646@lixom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:11:09PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 06:39:01PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 01:19:49PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > From: Julia Lawall > > > > > > > > > > pci_get_device increments a reference count that should be decremented > > > > > using pci_dev_put. I have thus added an extra label in the error handling > > > > > code to do this. I don't know, however, whether there should be a > > > > > pci_dev_put before the return 0 as well. > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Olof Johansson > > > > > > Do you know the answer about the return 0? > > > > Teaches me to read the patch description twice. > > > > Either there or in pasemi_nand_remove(), doesn't matter much to me. Doing > > it before the return 0 is the smaller change. > > Actually, could pci_dev_put(pdev) be placed right after: > > lpcctl = pci_resource_start(pdev, 0); > > Then there would only be one, and the rest of the code could go back to > its original form. Yep, even easier. Thanks for catching this. -Olof