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;
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:32:21 +0800
From:   Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc:     Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>, kernel@pengutronix.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-imx@nxp.com,
        Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@nxp.com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@huawei.com>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ARM: imx6: add missing put_device() call in imx6q_suspend_init()
Message-ID: <20200623073220.GV30139@dragon>
References: <cf810c93-297c-c02c-9bba-8c3d097b8e31@web.de>
 <2ab2cc9f-c720-75ca-e20c-0e4236ff45fd@huawei.com>
 <1542979d-f7f6-bcf1-53c3-22b7c076ddc7@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1542979d-f7f6-bcf1-53c3-22b7c076ddc7@web.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:15:32PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Do you find a previous update suggestion useful?
> >>
> >> ARM: imx6: Add missing put_device() call in imx6q_suspend_init()
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/5acd7308-f6e1-4b1e-c744-bb2e5fdca1be@web.de/
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1151158/
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/11/9/125
> …
> > It is useful indeed.
> 
> Thanks for your positive feedback.
> 
> 
> > Although I didn't run cocci script, since it can produce too many false result
> > which is hard to filter out.
> 
> Would you like to clarify any corresponding software analysis options?
> 
> 
> > BTW, I see you haver done the work already, I guess I won't send any patches
> > related to 'missing put_device after of_find_device_by_node()'.
> 
> You may continue also with contributions in such a direction.
> I would like to point out that other developers occasionally got into the mood
> to improve implementation details in similar ways already.
> 
> 
> > Any idea why these pathes didn't get applied ?
> 
> I can make assumptions about the reasons for the possibly questionable handling
> of such patches.

Markus,

Could you resend it to my kernel.org address?

Shawn