> According to Markus's suggestion, split it into two small patches: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/7/8/520 Thanks that you picked adjustment possibilities up from my feedback. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/99840e11-e0e6-b3f4-e35b-56ef4ec39417@xxxxxx/ Now I wonder why you omitted message recipients from the cover letter. Please keep the address lists usually complete also here for improvements on the same source file in subsequent patch series. Can a subject like “[PATCH 0/2] Fix mpc831x_usb_cfg()” be more succinct? > powerpc/83xx: fix use-after-free in mpc831x_usb_cfg() This update variant is generally fine. I would prefer to avoid the addition of function calls at two places when the corresponding exception handling should be specified only once at the end of such a function implementation. > powerpc/83xx: cleanup error paths in mpc831x_usb_cfg() I would find it clearer to fix the error handling in the first update step completely. I guess that a renaming of the label “out” into “out_unmap” (or “unmap_io”?) would be an auxiliary change for the second update step. I am curious if different preferences for change combinations will trigger further collateral evolution. Regards, Markus
