Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] net: dsa: add missing kfree on remove

From: Sergei Shtylyov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:15:52 +0300

Hello.

On 10/6/2015 10:25 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote:

>>>>> To prevent memory leakage on unbinding, add missing kfree calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <[email-masked]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     net/dsa/dsa.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>>     1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa.c b/net/dsa/dsa.c
>>>>> index c59fa5d..12cec40 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/dsa/dsa.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/dsa/dsa.c
>>>>> @@ -914,8 +914,10 @@ static void dsa_remove_dst(struct dsa_switch_tree *dst)
>>>>>         for (i = 0; i < dst->pd->nr_chips; i++) {
>>>>>             struct dsa_switch *ds = dst->ds[i];
>>>>>
>>>>> -        if (ds != NULL)
>>>>> +        if (ds != NULL) {
>>>>
>>>>      Didn;t scripts/checkpatch.pl complain here? just if (ds) is preferred in the networking code.
>>>>
>>>> MBR, Sergei
>>>>
>>> Yes,
>>>
>>> But I considered the cosmetic changes are not the subject of this serie.
>>
>>     Formally, all the patches should be checkpatch-clean...
>>
>>> Neil
>>
>> MBR, Sergei
>>
> Sure,

> How should I handle this case ?
> A separate patch with the cosmetic change before the kfree addition ?

    No, that would classify as a cleanup, and cleanups shouldn't be queued 
before fixes (should be the other way around). Just do this in this same 
patch, possibly mentioning in the change log.

> Neil

MBR, Sergei