On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:33 PM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > If rpmsg_register_device fails, it will call > > mtk_rpmsg_release_device which already frees mdev. > > Can another imperative wording become helpful for the change description? > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=9c7d619be5a002ea29c172df5e3c1227c22cbb41#n151 Looking at your posting history, I'll leave it up to the maintainer. > … > > +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/mtk_rpmsg.c > > @@ -220,10 +220,8 @@ static int mtk_rpmsg_register_device(struct mtk_rpmsg_rproc_subdev *mtk_subdev, > > rpdev->dev.release = mtk_rpmsg_release_device; > > > > ret = rpmsg_register_device(rpdev); > > - if (ret) { > > - kfree(mdev); > > + if (ret) > > return ret; > > - } > > > > return 0; > > } > > > * How do you think about to use the following code variant instead? > > return rpmsg_register_device(rpdev); > > * Would you like to omit the variable “ret” for this function implementation? That's a good suggestion, I'll update and send a v2. > > Regards, > Markus
