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;
From:   Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:51:28 +0100
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@gmail.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASE 0/3] atomisp: Rebased fixes
Message-ID: <20200922135128.f2yuf7cixb3hfwba@lenovo-laptop>
References: <21f18dc2-a1bc-0a37-0336-fc35170a40e9@gmail.com>
 <20200922090914.20702-1-alex.dewar90@gmail.com>
 <20200922112729.313d454d@coco.lan>
 <f14fac45-d713-a6ee-f0be-906a6d971b43@gmail.com>
 <20200922132727.GG4282@kadam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200922132727.GG4282@kadam>
Precedence: bulk

[snip]
> > That sounds more sensible. I've also just noticed that I introduced a bug in
> > the first patch when rebasing it :-/, so let's hold off on the whole series
> > and I'll do a proper tidy and resend after the next merge window.
> 
> Is the bug the memory leak if lm3554_platform_data_func() fails?
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 

>  
Nope. I put a "return ret" for the last check instead of "goto err_del_timer"...

The version of this code in linux-next does the correct "if (PTR_ERR(...))"
check after calling lm3554_platform_data_func(), but this patch doesn't
seem to have made its way into linux-media yet. All the more reason to
resend my patches after the merge window, I suppose.

Best,
Alex