From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Lu Hongfei <luhongfei@vivo.com>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
opensource.kernel@vivo.com
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
cocci@inria.fr, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [cocci] [PATCH v2] soc: qcom: pmic: Fix resource leaks in device_for_each_child_node() loops
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 14:40:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <423a16a5-29e4-8608-9369-52da48527faa@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230601021726.34908-1-luhongfei@vivo.com>
> The device_for_each_child_node loop in pmic_glink_altmode_probe should have
> fwnode_handle_put() before return which could avoid resource leaks.
Would it be more appropriate to use the wording “Fix resource leaks
in a device_for_each_child_node() loop” instead of
“Fix resource leaks in device_for_each_child_node() loops” in the patch subject
because you would like to adjust source code from only a single loop in
this function implementation?
Would a wording like “The fwnode_handle_put() function should be called
in some error cases.” be nicer for the change description?
> This patch could fix this bug.
Please replace the sentence by an imperative change suggestion.
See also:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.4-rc6#n94
Regards,
Markus
parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-12 12:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <20230601021726.34908-1-luhongfei@vivo.com>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=423a16a5-29e4-8608-9369-52da48527faa@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=agross@kernel.org \
--cc=andersson@kernel.org \
--cc=cocci@inria.fr \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=konrad.dybcio@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luhongfei@vivo.com \
--cc=neil.armstrong@linaro.org \
--cc=opensource.kernel@vivo.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).