On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 13:02 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > x86, cpufreq: avoid an unnecessary double free when finished in pcc_cpufreq_do_osc() > > > > There is no need to fall through the out_free label thus saving a kfree call. > > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c | 2 ++ > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c > > index 994230d..db7dc35 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c > > @@ -379,6 +379,8 @@ static int __init pcc_cpufreq_do_osc(acpi_handle *handle) > > if (!(supported & 0x1)) > > return -ENODEV; > > > > + return ret; > > + > > out_free: > > kfree(output.pointer); > > return ret; > > Why is the kfree() unnecessary? acpi_evaluate_object() will allocate a > new output.pointer if it returns 0, so at this point in the code you would > now be leaking the buffer. > > Instead, it would probably be better to fix the existing memory leaks in > that function where we return -ENODEV without going to out_free when > output.length is non-zero. > Silly me, I must be asleep still. Pekka's attached patch is just right. Sorry for the noise. Davidlohr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
