On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:44 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:31 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/25/21 13:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 12:42 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > >> + if (ret == 0 && sensor_adev_ret) > > >> + *sensor_adev_ret = sensor; > > >> + else > > >> + acpi_dev_put(sensor); > > >> + > > >> + return ret; ... > > > if (sensor_adev_ret) > > > *sensor_adev_ret = sensor; > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > ? > > > > That misses an acpi_dev_put(sensor) when sensor_adev_ret == NULL. > > else > acpi_dev_put(...); > > ? Hmm... But then in the original code and with this proposal the acpi_dev_put() seems a bit strange to me. If we are fine (no error code returned) why would the caller (note _er_) go different paths? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
