drivers/tee/optee/notif.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
kfree() and bitmap_free() are the same. But using the latter is more
consistent when freeing memory allocated with bitmap_zalloc().
Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
---
drivers/tee/optee/notif.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/notif.c b/drivers/tee/optee/notif.c
index a28fa03dcd0e..05212842b0a5 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/optee/notif.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/optee/notif.c
@@ -121,5 +121,5 @@ int optee_notif_init(struct optee *optee, u_int max_key)
void optee_notif_uninit(struct optee *optee)
{
- kfree(optee->notif.bitmap);
+ bitmap_free(optee->notif.bitmap);
}
--
2.32.0
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 20:02, Christophe JAILLET
<christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> kfree() and bitmap_free() are the same. But using the latter is more
> consistent when freeing memory allocated with bitmap_zalloc().
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
> ---
> drivers/tee/optee/notif.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
Looks reasonable to me.
Reviewed-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
-Sumit
> diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/notif.c b/drivers/tee/optee/notif.c
> index a28fa03dcd0e..05212842b0a5 100644
> --- a/drivers/tee/optee/notif.c
> +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/notif.c
> @@ -121,5 +121,5 @@ int optee_notif_init(struct optee *optee, u_int max_key)
>
> void optee_notif_uninit(struct optee *optee)
> {
> - kfree(optee->notif.bitmap);
> + bitmap_free(optee->notif.bitmap);
> }
> --
> 2.32.0
>
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 6:36 AM Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 20:02, Christophe JAILLET > <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > > > kfree() and bitmap_free() are the same. But using the latter is more > > consistent when freeing memory allocated with bitmap_zalloc(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> > > --- > > drivers/tee/optee/notif.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Looks reasonable to me. > > Reviewed-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org> > Looks good, picking up this. Thanks, Jens
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.