On Monday, October 29, 2012 10:32:54 PM Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> > > Either way, the code looks functional to me.
> >
> > So is that "reviewed-by"?
>
> I was thinking about this hunk:
> > @@ -1972,7 +2084,20 @@ int input_register_device(struct input_dev *dev)
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&input_mutex);
> >
> > + if (dev->devres_managed) {
> > + dev_info(dev->dev.parent, "%s: registerign %s with
> > devres.\n", + __func__, dev->name ?: "N/A");
> > + devres_add(dev->dev.parent, devres);
> > + }
> >
> > return 0;
> >
> > +
> > +err_device_del:
> > + device_del(&dev->dev);
> > +err_free_vals:
> > + kfree(dev->vals);
>
> Won't this yield a double free once we reach release()?
Nicely spotted, we need "dev->vals = NULL;" here.
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
