On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:19:24PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 10:14:38PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:46:32 +0300 > > > > > > > The break statement should be indented one more tab. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Applied, but like Julia I think we might have a missing of_node_put() > > > here. > > > > Of course, sorry for dropping the ball on this. I'll send a patch for > > that. > > > > Actually, I've looked at it some more and I think this function is OK. > We're supposed to do an of_node_put() later... I can't find where that > happens, but presumably that's because I don't know stmmac well. This > code here, though, is fine. Why do you think it is fine? Does anyone in the calling context know which child would have caused the break? An extra put is only needed on that one. Is there a guarantee that the break is always taken? julia -- 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
