Hi Felipe, On Wednesday 31 October 2012 15:06:54 Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:15:05PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > The "video->minor = -1" assigment is done in V4L2 by > > video_register_device() so it is removed here. > > Now. uvc_function_bind() calls in error case uvc_function_unbind() for > > cleanup. The problem is that uvc_function_unbind() frees the uvc struct > > and uvc_bind_config() does as well in error case of usb_add_function(). > > Removing kfree() in usb_add_function() would make the patch smaller but > > it would look odd because the new allocated memory is not cleaned up. > > However it is not guaranteed that if we call usb_add_function() we also > > get to the bind function. > > Therefore the patch extracts the conditional cleanup from > > uvc_function_unbind() applies to uvc_function_bind(). > > uvc_function_unbind() now contains only the complete cleanup which is > > required once everything has been registrated. > > > > Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxx> > > Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > this has been soaking for long enough and no replies from either Laurent > or Bhupesh. I'm already applying this series, if there is something > wrong it will have to be a patch on top of my gadget branch. Sorry for the too long silence. I would have isolated the common code in a separate function, but that's too late now. It doesn't matter too much though. Bhupesh, do you plan to test my UVC gadget patches with USB 3, or should we drop the USB 3 patches completely ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
