Re: [PATCH 1/1] drivers/misc: at2x: use devm_kzalloc() to makecleanup paths simpler

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Nikolay Balandin
<n.a.balandin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Nikolay Balandin <nbalandin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Please, at least small commit message.


> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> @@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>                 num_addresses = DIV_ROUND_UP(chip.byte_len,
>                         (chip.flags & AT24_FLAG_ADDR16) ? 65536 : 256);
>
> -       at24 = kzalloc(sizeof(struct at24_data) +
> +       at24 = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(struct at24_data) +
>                 num_addresses * sizeof(struct i2c_client *), GFP_KERNEL);
>         if (!at24) {
>                 err = -ENOMEM;
> @@ -596,10 +596,12 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>                         at24->write_max = write_max;
>
>                         /* buffer (data + address at the beginning) */
> -                       at24->writebuf = kmalloc(write_max + 2, GFP_KERNEL);
> +                       at24->writebuf = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev,
> +                               write_max + 2, GFP_KERNEL);
> +
>                         if (!at24->writebuf) {
>                                 err = -ENOMEM;
> -                               goto err_struct;
> +                               goto err_out;

Return directly.

>                         }
>                 } else {
>                         dev_warn(&client->dev,
> @@ -647,10 +649,6 @@ err_clients:
>         for (i = 1; i < num_addresses; i++)
>                 if (at24->client[i])
>                         i2c_unregister_device(at24->client[i]);
> -
> -       kfree(at24->writebuf);
> -err_struct:
> -       kfree(at24);
>  err_out:

Remove this label as well.

>         dev_dbg(&client->dev, "probe error %d\n", err);

I think you may remove this [useless] message as well.

>         return err;


> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c

> @@ -455,7 +456,6 @@ static int at25_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>         return 0;
>  fail:
>         dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "probe err %d\n", err);
> -       kfree(at25);
>         return err;

I believe there is no harm to remove 'fail' branch.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/