On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 04:16:16PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:37 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 1/14/21 7:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
...
> > When I have cases like this, where 2 mallocs are necessary I typically do it like this:
> >
> > const char *bus_id;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > } else {
> > acpi_device_bus_id = kzalloc(sizeof(*acpi_device_bus_id),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > bus_id = kstrdup_const(acpi_device_hid(device), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!acpi_device_bus_id || !bus_id) {
> > kfree(acpi_device_bus_id);
> > kfree(bus_id);
Just to be sure, shouldn't it be kfree_const() ?
> > result = -ENOMEM;
> > goto err_unlock;
> > }
> > acpi_device_bus_id->bus_id = bus_id;
> > list_add_tail(&acpi_device_bus_id->node, &acpi_bus_id_list);
> > }
> >
> > ...
> >
> > So that there is only one if / 1 error-handling path for both mallocs.
> > I personally find this a bit cleaner.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
