>>> Add fwnode_handle_put() to avoid leaked references.
>>
>> Are you going to respond also to my previous patch review
>> in more constructive ways?
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/4/29/493
>
> Sorry about that, both Bard and I missed your comments.
How could this happen?
> On the Fixes tag: I made a deliberate choice to add all the fixes in one
> patch, to show that the usage was copy-pasted and done 'wrong' in
> multiple places. That makes it really hard to add a Fixes tag since the
> different uses were added in a time interval of about 5 years.
Is it interesting how the affected software components evolved in the meantime?
> We could split and have multiple patches if that was desired, but I
> would still not include a Fixes tag since the leaked references are not
> that bad, we read the Manager properties on probe, and the peripheral
> properties are generally not used by codec drivers, so it's unlikely
> that any user will ever see a problem that requires a backport in linux-stable.
…
I became curious how the exception handling will be completed here.
* Do you still care for the usage of goto chains?
https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/MEM12-C.+Consider+using+a+goto+chain+when+leaving+a+function+on+error+when+using+and+releasing+resources
* How do you think about to increase the application of scope-based resource management?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc1/source/include/linux/cleanup.h#L124
Regards,
Markus
On 28-05-24, 18:22, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> Add fwnode_handle_put() to avoid leaked references.
> >>
> >> Are you going to respond also to my previous patch review
> >> in more constructive ways?
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/4/29/493
> >
> > Sorry about that, both Bard and I missed your comments.
>
> How could this happen?
Becuase your emails go to dev/null for most of people!
--
~Vinod
>>>>> Add fwnode_handle_put() to avoid leaked references.
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to respond also to my previous patch review
>>>> in more constructive ways?
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/eb15ab0a-e416-4ae9-98bb-610fdc04492c@webde/
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/4/29/493
>>>
>>> Sorry about that, both Bard and I missed your comments.
>>
>> How could this happen?
>
> Becuase your emails go to dev/null for most of people!
I am aware of some communication challenges.
Is it interesting that my enquiry for this “PATCH RESEND” triggered
a constructive response finally?
Regards,
Markus