On 2023/3/17 18:27, srinivas pandruvada wrote:
Hi Dongliang,
...
...
Hi Srinivas and Hans,
How about folding these three patches into one patch and resend a v3
patch?
This will get all people together and avoid the previous embarrassing
sitation.
This is NOT an embarrassing situation.
Thanks for finding and fixing the issue.
Thanks,
Srinivas
Hi Srinivas,
Any conclusion about this patch set?
Dongliang Mu
Regards,
Hans
---
drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi.c | 17 ++++-------------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi.c
b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi.c
index c999732b0f1e..882fe5e4763f 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi.c
@@ -215,8 +215,8 @@ static int tpmi_create_device(struct
intel_tpmi_info *tpmi_info,
feature_vsec_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*feature_vsec_dev),
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!feature_vsec_dev) {
- ret = -ENOMEM;
- goto free_res;
+ kfree(res);
+ return -ENOMEM;
}
snprintf(feature_id_name, sizeof(feature_id_name),
"tpmi-
%s", name);
@@ -242,17 +242,8 @@ static int tpmi_create_device(struct
intel_tpmi_info *tpmi_info,
* feature_vsec_dev memory is also freed as part of
device
* delete.
*/
- ret = intel_vsec_add_aux(vsec_dev->pcidev, &vsec_dev-
auxdev.dev,
- feature_vsec_dev,
feature_id_name);
- if (ret)
- goto free_res;
-
- return 0;
-
-free_res:
- kfree(res);
-
- return ret;
+ return intel_vsec_add_aux(vsec_dev->pcidev, &vsec_dev-
auxdev.dev,
+ feature_vsec_dev,
feature_id_name);
}
static int tpmi_create_devices(struct intel_tpmi_info
*tpmi_info)
