Hi, On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:10AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > This is exactly why we have platform_device_alloc(), > > > platform_device_register_full() and friends - so that people don't have to > > > fsck around with kzalloc themselves and get it wrong like the above does. > > > > > > Would you like me to pass your details to gregkh for another one of his > > > public humilation exercises over basic kernel programming stuff? :) > > > > How about we pass yours for not reading the patch before flaming ? Note > > that $SUBJECT is *not* touching at all that line which kzallocs a > > platform_device. Wrong as it is, it's not part of $SUBJECT. > > It's really simple. You do not use k*alloc with platform devices. And agree, no discussions here > you reject any patch which contains that, and point it out to the patch > author. > > It really doesn't matter if there's a kfree or not. The fact is you do > not allow it in any situation, because such bad practises get copied > and then you end up with kfree's. > > How about you gain an understanding of this stuff and why this stuff is > soo "hot". how about you look at the git log to figure out I had nothing to do with that original patch which added k*alloc to the pdev ? -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
