On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 16:08 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:02:54PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > > > 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. > > Oh, *duh*. That was subtle. Yep, anyways, at least we got the correct "fix". > You, and Pekka are of course correct. I'll merge up Pekka's patch. > > thanks, > > Dave > > -- 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
