On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 15:02 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I'll admit that it's unlikely for the first allocation to fail and
> the second one to succeed. I won't be offended if you ignore this
> patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> index eda74c4..f9254fb 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -5107,6 +5107,7 @@ static int nfs41_proc_async_sequence(struct nfs_client *clp,
> res = kzalloc(sizeof(*res), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!args || !res) {
> kfree(args);
> + kfree(res);
> nfs_put_client(clp);
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
It's a good point. I will apply...
Cheers
Trond
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
