On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:11:09PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 06:39:01PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 01:19:49PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > From: Julia Lawall <julia@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > pci_get_device increments a reference count that should be decremented > > > > > using pci_dev_put. I have thus added an extra label in the error handling > > > > > code to do this. I don't know, however, whether there should be a > > > > > pci_dev_put before the return 0 as well. > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Do you know the answer about the return 0? > > > > Teaches me to read the patch description twice. > > > > Either there or in pasemi_nand_remove(), doesn't matter much to me. Doing > > it before the return 0 is the smaller change. > > Actually, could pci_dev_put(pdev) be placed right after: > > lpcctl = pci_resource_start(pdev, 0); > > Then there would only be one, and the rest of the code could go back to > its original form. Yep, even easier. Thanks for catching this. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
