2020-07-28 14:53:23

by Markus Elfring

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k/amiga: Add missing platform_device_unregister() call in amiga_init_devices()

> Add the missing platform_device_unregister() before return
> from amiga_init_devices() in the error handling case.

Will the tag “Fixes” become helpful for the commit message?



> +++ b/arch/m68k/amiga/platform.c
> @@ -188,8 +188,10 @@ static int __init amiga_init_devices(void)
> return PTR_ERR(pdev);
> error = platform_device_add_data(pdev, &a1200_ide_pdata,
> sizeof(a1200_ide_pdata));
> - if (error)
> + if (error) {
> + platform_device_unregister(pdev);
> return error;
> + }
> }


I suggest to add a jump target for the desired exception handling.

if (error)
+ goto unregister_device;


Regards,
Markus


2020-07-28 15:56:33

by Greg KH

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k/amiga: Add missing platform_device_unregister() call in amiga_init_devices()

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:50:06PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Add the missing platform_device_unregister() before return
> > from amiga_init_devices() in the error handling case.
>
> Will the tag “Fixes” become helpful for the commit message?
>
>
> …
> > +++ b/arch/m68k/amiga/platform.c
> > @@ -188,8 +188,10 @@ static int __init amiga_init_devices(void)
> > return PTR_ERR(pdev);
> > error = platform_device_add_data(pdev, &a1200_ide_pdata,
> > sizeof(a1200_ide_pdata));
> > - if (error)
> > + if (error) {
> > + platform_device_unregister(pdev);
> > return error;
> > + }
> > }
> …
>
> I suggest to add a jump target for the desired exception handling.
>
> if (error)
> + goto unregister_device;
>
>
> 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