From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [217.72.192.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 946694779E; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:44:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.72.192.78 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712853867; cv=none; b=CBSiFp4athaE8KcAki4bFCqCWK0Bf5ZMQyHMWAHb6a9NEZBm8yswyLt3l3DyvZnmuhwntbhAAenkvG7iq108hiSG6Gm58iwo9RqgFmBZ3qFjKcBfHP/HVUjkPGdsNewohN4CXS74hv6DnF4Kk1pxHd74J6Q2NTjL1LRo8j5zVY0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712853867; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8mOIOrcpTE4F/7rNflGHUTplie+JZBjQPhk37lNYj1A=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:To:Cc:References:Subject:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=S3dMos3SXNVUXrzVjDxn28mfdI56GbpEvkGWYtGkYbNPAWJR5NVbSRIG2S7hNecL9Sazk+q5rl3IgIHh4c1LelfZEOfVhCbdE35cOoyABGlkMmbJarNiY32piPsnCKeP8bkWL++XvBVOxMQ73q0pd7Kpfle9eF+OUDyE2V2G7l4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=web.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=web.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=web.de header.i=markus.elfring@web.de header.b=IpSGw3Va; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.72.192.78 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=web.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=web.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=web.de header.i=markus.elfring@web.de header.b="IpSGw3Va" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=web.de; s=s29768273; t=1712853812; x=1713458612; i=markus.elfring@web.de; bh=8mOIOrcpTE4F/7rNflGHUTplie+JZBjQPhk37lNYj1A=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:To:Cc:References:Subject:From: In-Reply-To; b=IpSGw3Va7lx9pZL0ic2y1E7w+dmHgwke/sRDAjqIHKHipidXyrRQTLcmcheUQpYL aoAne8U+37ScE60uEhhUbJHbxDZyaL+KtSVUwsKEfxKGBT/UXnpYp6wfPCjQrqDN0 bR6DFJoVeaZYUz8HGvA1+n9WLwvso7PWJbP4gz2qoAHFaC6DTMUmm1QxNR7lDQBu2 GVKV8RYdj1jUdRLnWrJgRuj5o9fKOaWYZHaUJP8MEt/exWKlPOWDOoxZ8G55mYZ4t QezDv2+hm/sGqiHNOU3kAB+DXF9TU/ty1GGwuReOR6yLcltFn/bTna+5zsSlxoTNo /gMLgjMX2YIYv9+Rjw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 814a7b36-bfc1-4dae-8640-3722d8ec6cd6 Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([94.31.81.95]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb105 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Myf3v-1sgjU11LIr-00z0sJ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 18:43:32 +0200 Message-ID: <3eef0167-5dd3-443d-80aa-f450a75550df@web.de> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 18:43:27 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Zhihao Cheng , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Ben Hutchings , Daniel Golle , Miquel Raynal , Richard Weinberger Cc: LKML References: <20240411031903.3050278-3-chengzhihao1@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ubi: ubi_init: Fix missed ubiblock cleanup in error handling path Content-Language: en-GB From: Markus Elfring In-Reply-To: <20240411031903.3050278-3-chengzhihao1@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:QlmEVZ2NncpGVwcZQl4z4ehY4fK4uOZghUxiEaN4yE5ZajFSLMT lnPZqsnzskvgbHrAgIffyBbmnTlbmMV0ZIqjiJ9VpsOCMhbdDhl4S8vX+sUl4OxH+6pNGFp pDuyguo5udjibqch/aOKbqifAsf/RLcYvnsGe8cFWkiFk3zKaV9PjYA844bekR0WCLl/lCA tmSVYf/QAvoWcZ2woJpjg== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:/pmq13PeoG4=;UUwsLfyMu2kkGJeeT9w86o5neLa ejn0s48ReSKJwzAs2HSb34/gFO1zh9g2sjYB9Zi6zdN6ic/OZOXfM5OLnZdjmXlECpta/xT48 XAwF6SfNxyfrlQI/Lx33fmBtqVhgLnLoY1f28T21E1SFJj1hvl7VE0C1ATkpM5isXuUMEXnS8 xd4G6nEYJ1oH5LALtbHzvflF5jUPafO9GUgOMDCOl+20hLPN/CqfkyiLIPQngp/e8z3DkL8up eH4OM5kghxQpbp1XuY1YFuYboNyR4XbMWub954BnDAQx+wjglt8h/ulQoxqKKkoKBumikaNLz hTwMlmKMHkbWdOTEJ2qiDL0TvQWaOrO7586kHPGm4dkaYjbnbS+OOo0aMiKA5ukU54u1v2u17 PsRMi/JE6Vz+lVtPIopCKX+4+CfCvGulUHeVWp/vHEtUJSRdwUatecwTvDsRDjF1KGJclHWak qeL/EqN9XvGRm1RMSFTorbJb7bxWwZmWknT/qwptX2PU78PapiEQlFImp+SsUT/IX+yPw1HiV vYocOjFFI4hI5n3llsK5sQDHHzs7cmgzMKpoJf+A9gMXrLWyoy9+DPc/6Fr4Alh049pZ8cigc gkSShubCVlHYUDKGT1EPbTgzjSMxMdqCm1DA06wySezfoUO/hZYdq8ytjzCZSY+xV3Ig5+5fV VOOdGbsnBwucpsQjvu7dB3/Rwchi9Wwm6T2YU2xcOamQbNQmZP/aah5IwUtQHnGmi3riMG/E2 wz86451CS/TidNalmiWovqK9C303Oo3+Rp8SkOdW7fGOXUyBHBDgiXtoff/5oQ/KtCnRCv9nx 1wyv/hZ3tdIdYV3KXxgNgBNQfp1I+icL6M1oDCHA9TWIc= =E2=80=A6 > Since ubiblock_init() registers notifier and invokes notification > functions, so we can move it after ubi_init_attach() to fix the problem. I find this change description improvable. Would an imperative wording be also more desirable here? Regards, Markus