Received: by 2002:a25:868d:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id z13csp637498ybk; Sat, 9 May 2020 13:33:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJY8x7TBm3+HlZ/TFAsoPp4T7EPaVdZ+2ZJ8lzb3EZ59ICW/gvOFxJ6qkNrkWJl5i/D16UE X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1543:: with SMTP id p3mr7610497edx.333.1589056430814; Sat, 09 May 2020 13:33:50 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1589056430; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=klvIJeHcCJoUV8KN4/1O668Cz8X9Jo2McxaQDHfrMaIE8lLJZeyNE+CDfd5IkAgrtr gPYd5Q1GQ4qiqHTyx+r9a7wOlIe1GI2rRDJO4u3FKeoX8h+wn6JSDUuhZi1+oU4zBR/S +B8yCFaUP4KE3JsoMGWTJDpc+cAO19GQqYjy0mcONROQenQi7anqf7xFE0Iu5pssXi8p xRnDtVNERjrdTkA7+L+VbdxIms0B4YWWKbs21207XgyPRq/bLP54g6OCQS3jz86/uWAv KLi2NrUoVB2NvLWswcuq7vEWjyyjzXEH/Dzik7cVbolYxmfueYU0Cspv+mG8xZzMKDwG +MOg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-language :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=G9I3kgUT2fHeqvDByl7yEvG2ONMHCtjBb3V+YzzmScc=; b=rf2ShZWObTltuwnPZ21VQDaxnTQ1ipOmif7Yoi/lqQhWv7/NoqzehHyLBv4DiPQuJ1 5KpJnHmTDUuLVuiiCs1qlRKhGAf2M1PvT2S+jkOx+G7yL99z21mFGTNUj40ERNMt9WxK 7QitNxiOly2ARDcAgv/klxs/8mM6Ke4rW+yWMvK/C8AmIv3mm0EA16paE+nKfs7R5SZU RWqMFnWCtizxcs/7ovsSAjGIJFtWmi2a37X7o//z5IcYNPJYVRHptsBEXhoge0eAoZ7U wZlZId/WPpcT66YChu/qZA5+vhrYTmt0q8VLRzF9Y9JLKS5FqmPcJVJO9k1QEM7CH3ZH tmEQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dc11si3111156ejb.215.2020.05.09.13.33.26; Sat, 09 May 2020 13:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728021AbgEIUcI (ORCPT + 99 others); Sat, 9 May 2020 16:32:08 -0400 Received: from smtp13.smtpout.orange.fr ([80.12.242.135]:57360 "EHLO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725960AbgEIUcI (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2020 16:32:08 -0400 Received: from [192.168.42.210] ([93.23.15.202]) by mwinf5d70 with ME id ckXz220064MaNxZ03kXzm4; Sat, 09 May 2020 22:32:06 +0200 X-ME-Helo: [192.168.42.210] X-ME-Auth: Y2hyaXN0b3BoZS5qYWlsbGV0QHdhbmFkb28uZnI= X-ME-Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 22:32:06 +0200 X-ME-IP: 93.23.15.202 Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/sonic: Fix some resource leaks in error handling paths To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: davem@davemloft.net, fthain@telegraphics.com.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org References: <20200508172557.218132-1-christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> <20200508185402.41d9d068@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <50ef36cd-d095-9abe-26ea-d363d11ce521@wanadoo.fr> <20200509111321.51419b19@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> From: Christophe JAILLET Message-ID: <9f7ed642-c464-feec-2dfd-13333621492f@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 22:31:59 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200509111321.51419b19@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le 09/05/2020 à 20:13, Jakub Kicinski a écrit : > On Sat, 9 May 2020 18:47:08 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote: >> Le 09/05/2020 à 03:54, Jakub Kicinski a écrit : >>> On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote: >>>> @@ -527,8 +531,9 @@ static int mac_sonic_platform_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> struct sonic_local* lp = netdev_priv(dev); >>>> >>>> unregister_netdev(dev); >>>> - dma_free_coherent(lp->device, SIZEOF_SONIC_DESC * SONIC_BUS_SCALE(lp->dma_bitmode), >>>> - lp->descriptors, lp->descriptors_laddr); >>>> + dma_free_coherent(lp->device, >>>> + SIZEOF_SONIC_DESC * SONIC_BUS_SCALE(lp->dma_bitmode), >>>> + lp->descriptors, lp->descriptors_laddr); >>>> free_netdev(dev); >>>> >>>> return 0; >>> This is a white-space only change, right? Since this is a fix we should >>> avoid making cleanups which are not strictly necessary. >> Right. >> >> The reason of this clean-up is that I wanted to avoid a checkpatch >> warning with the proposed patch and I felt that having the same layout >> in the error handling path of the probe function and in the remove >> function was clearer. >> So I updated also the remove function. > I understand the motivation is good. > >> Fell free to ignore this hunk if not desired. I will not sent a V2 only >> for that. > That's not how it works. Busy maintainers don't have time to hand edit > patches. I'm not applying this to the networking tree and I'm tossing it > from patchwork. Please address the basic feedback. > > Thank you. > Hi, that's not the way you would like it to work. It happens that some maintainers make some small adjustments in the commit message or the patch itself. The patch is good enough for me. If you can not accept the additional small clean-up, or don't have time to tweak it by yourself, or by anyone else, please, just reject it. The issue I propose to fix is minor and unlikely to happen anyway. If anyone else cares to update the proposal, please do. I don't want to discuss your motivation, I understand them. But please, do also understand mine and do not require too futile things from hobbyists. Spending time only to remove a CR because it does not match your quality standard or your expectation of what a patch is, is of no interest for me. That's why I told I would not send a V2. It is up to you to accept it as-is, update it or reject it, according to the value you think this patch has. Hoping for your understanding and sorry for wasting your time. Best regards, CJ