On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 19:24 -0200, Rajiv Andrade wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > On 11/12/2010 12:48 PM, David Safford wrote: > > > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:11 +0000, David Howells wrote: > >> Mimi Zohar<zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>>>> + module_put(chip->dev->driver->owner); > >>>> Where's the corresponding module_get()? I suspect this should be wrapped to > >>>> match tpm_chip_find_get(). > >>>> > >>>> David > >>> The module_get() is in tpm_chip_find_get(), which is just a helper. > >>> (It's used this way throughout tpm.c) > >> I'd make a function tpm_chip_find_put() just to wrap module_put() and then > >> place it with tpm_chip_find_get() in the sources. That makes it easier to see > >> what's going on. > > Or alternately rename the helper to tpm_chip_find_and_module_get()? > > In either case, this is really up to Rajiv (the maintainer for tpm.c > > who has already acked this patch), as this usage already appears in > > other places in tpm.c. There would have to be a separate patch fixing > > this for all of the instances. Rajiv, your thoughts? > > > > dave > Rename the helper to tpm_chip_find_and_module_get() solves the naming issue > in a simpler and better way in my opinion. > > Thanks, > Rajiv David, does this look ok to you? If so, I will do two patches, one to fix the helper name throughout the existing tpm.c, and then a new version of the tpm_send patch which uses the new name. thanks dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
