>>> rzg2l_irqc_common_init calls of_find_device_by_node, but the >>> corresponding put_device call is missing. … >>> Make use of the cleanup interfaces from cleanup.h to call into >>> __free_put_device (which in turn calls into put_device) when >> >> Can it help to influence the understanding of this programming >> interface by mentioning the usage of a special attribute? > > Can you please stop pestering people with incomprehensible word salad? Which patch review comments would you find more appropriate here? >>> leaving function rzg2l_irqc_common_init and variable "dev" goes >>> out of scope. >>> >>> Mind that we don't want to "put" "dev" when rzg2l_irqc_common_init >>> completes successfully, therefore assign NULL to "dev" to prevent >>> __free_put_device from calling into put_device within the successful >>> path. >> >> Will further software design options become applicable here? >> >> Can any pointer type be used for the return value >> (instead of the data type “int”)? > > How is this relevant here? I imagine that the usage of error pointers can occasionally be helpful for such programming interfaces. >>> "make coccicheck" will still complain about missing put_device calls, >>> but those are false positives now. >> >> Would you like to discuss any adjustment possibilities for this >> development tool? > > Would you like to get useful work done insteead of telling everyone what > to do? There is nothing to discuss. I got other impressions for corresponding development opportunities. > But this change fixes a bug and that's it. Maybe. > We are not doing cleanups in a bug fix. Additional adjustments can be offered in subsequent update steps (within a patch series?). Regards, Markus
