On Thursday, November 04, 2010 11:39:30 am Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> pnp_add_device() may fail so we need to handle errors and avoid leaking
> memory. Also, do not use ACPI-specific return codes (AE_OK) but rather
> standard ones.
I think this is generally a good thing. You probably found this by
inspection, but if there's a bug report, please include the URL.
Would you consider fixing the similar leaks and failure path issues
in isapnp and pnpbios at the same time?
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> index 2d73dfc..06ee06c 100644
> --- a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> @@ -194,8 +194,9 @@ static char *pnpacpi_get_id(struct acpi_device *device)
>
> static int __init pnpacpi_add_device(struct acpi_device *device)
> {
> - acpi_handle temp = NULL;
> + acpi_handle temp;
> acpi_status status;
> + int error;
> struct pnp_dev *dev;
> char *pnpid;
> struct acpi_hardware_id *id;
> @@ -256,10 +257,16 @@ static int __init pnpacpi_add_device(struct acpi_device *device)
> /* clear out the damaged flags */
> if (!dev->active)
> pnp_init_resources(dev);
> - pnp_add_device(dev);
> +
> + error = pnp_add_device(dev);
> + if (error) {
> + put_device(&dev->dev);
> + return error;
> + }
> +
> num++;
>
> - return AE_OK;
> + return 0;
The acpi_get_devices() usage of pnpacpi_add_device() expects an
acpi_status return value, so maybe we should leave this same and
change the pnpacpi_add_device() return type from
"int" to "acpi_status"?
> }
>
> static acpi_status __init pnpacpi_add_device_handler(acpi_handle handle,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
