On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 07:54:43PM +0900, DaeSeok Youn wrote:
> Hi, Sakari
>
> 2014-04-15 18:33 GMT+09:00 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx>:
> > Hi Daeseok,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 01:49:34PM +0900, Daeseok Youn wrote:
> >>
> >> smatch says:
> >> drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c:2246 s2255_probe() warn:
> >> possible memory leak of 'dev'
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daeseok Youn <daeseok.youn@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c | 1 +
> >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c b/drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c
> >> index 1d4ba2b..8aca3ef 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c
> >> @@ -2243,6 +2243,7 @@ static int s2255_probe(struct usb_interface *interface,
> >> dev->cmdbuf = kzalloc(S2255_CMDBUF_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> if (dev->cmdbuf == NULL) {
> >> s2255_dev_err(&interface->dev, "out of memory\n");
> >> + kfree(dev);
> >> return -ENOMEM;
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > The rest of the function already uses goto and labels for error handling. I
> > think it'd take adding one more. dev is correctly released in other error
> > cases.
> I am not sure that adding a new label for error handling when
> allocation for dev->cmdbuf is failed.
> I think it is ok to me. :-) Because I think it is not good adding a
> new label and use goto statement for this.
I can ack this if you use the same pattern for error handling that's already
there.
--
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
