On 28/01/2021 09:00, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>> 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. >> IMO if this is a one-off usage, it's better to open-code it. > Sounds reasonable to me, too. > Just to clarify; "open-code" meaning inline it in the caller like Laurent said, right?
