On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Inderpal Singh <inderpal.singh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27 September 2012 10:35, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Inderpal Singh >> <inderpal.singh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Don't you think free_chan_resource should be done __only if__ >>> alloc_chan_resource was successful ? >>> >> No, I don't think so. Thanks. > > Thanks for quick response. > Please elaborate more on this as I find it against the general rule > and against the dmaengine implementation which checks on the same > condition before proceeding for free_chan_resouces in dma_chan_put > function. > I thought I already explained it, but here is the summary. Calling pl330_free_chan_resources() for channels that have zero client is already safe. Preventing the call by checking !client_count only increases LOC making it uglier. ** If the new check provides any more security, please let me know. ** Food for thought : we never check for NULL before passing a pointer to kfree(). Why ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |