> > There's a real danger of a memory leak, as the function name sounds very > > similar to dev_name() or acpi_dev_name() and those don't allocate > > memory. I'm not sure what a better name would be, but given that this > > function is only used in patch 6/7 and not in the I2C subsystem itself, > > I wonder if we should inline this kasprintf() call in the caller and > > drop this patch. > > IMO if this is a one-off usage, it's better to open-code it. Sounds reasonable to me, too.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
