On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:18:55AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:34:25AM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
...
> > +/**
> > + * i2c_acpi_dev_name - Construct i2c device name for devs sourced from ACPI
> > + * @adev: ACPI device to construct the name for
> > + *
> > + * Constructs the name of an i2c device matching the format used by
> > + * i2c_dev_set_name() to allow users to refer to an i2c device by name even
> > + * before they have been instantiated.
> > + *
> > + * The caller is responsible for freeing the returned pointer.
> > + */
> > +char *i2c_acpi_dev_name(struct acpi_device *adev)
> > +{
> > + return kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, I2C_DEV_NAME_FORMAT, acpi_dev_name(adev));
>
> There's a real danger of a memory leak, as the function name sounds very
> similar to dev_name() or acpi_dev_name() and those don't allocate
> memory. I'm not sure what a better name would be, but given that this
> function is only used in patch 6/7 and not in the I2C subsystem itself,
> I wonder if we should inline this kasprintf() call in the caller and
> drop this patch.
Dan, I'm fine with either choice.
> > +}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
