Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>
---
drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
index e780ed714a14..334fb7037766 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
@@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
return -ENOENT;
}
- mgmt = kzalloc(sizeof(*mgmt), GFP_KERNEL);
+ mgmt = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*mgmt), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!mgmt)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -1403,8 +1403,6 @@ static void vchiq_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
arm_state = vchiq_platform_get_arm_state(&mgmt->state);
kthread_stop(arm_state->ka_thread);
-
- kfree(mgmt);
}
static struct platform_driver vchiq_driver = {
--
2.45.2
Hi Umang,
Am 13.10.24 um 10:45 schrieb Umang Jain:
> Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>
except of the missing commit message, this patch looks good to me. I
understand the concerns about devm_kzalloc, but I think this doesn't
apply in this case.
Since this should be treated as RFC, is it already tested?
Regards
> ---
> drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> index e780ed714a14..334fb7037766 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> @@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return -ENOENT;
> }
>
> - mgmt = kzalloc(sizeof(*mgmt), GFP_KERNEL);
> + mgmt = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*mgmt), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!mgmt)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> @@ -1403,8 +1403,6 @@ static void vchiq_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> arm_state = vchiq_platform_get_arm_state(&mgmt->state);
> kthread_stop(arm_state->ka_thread);
> -
> - kfree(mgmt);
> }
>
> static struct platform_driver vchiq_driver = {
On 13/10/24 2:43 pm, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> Hi Umang,
>
> Am 13.10.24 um 10:45 schrieb Umang Jain:
>> Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>
> except of the missing commit message, this patch looks good to me. I
> understand the concerns about devm_kzalloc, but I think this doesn't
> apply in this case.
That's what I was wondering as well, since I tried module unloading and
with the cdev also goes away? So shouldn't be conern, right ?
>
> Since this should be treated as RFC, is it already tested?
yes, it was tested
>
> Regards
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git
>> a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>> b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>> index e780ed714a14..334fb7037766 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>> @@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> return -ENOENT;
>> }
>>
>> - mgmt = kzalloc(sizeof(*mgmt), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + mgmt = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*mgmt), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!mgmt)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> @@ -1403,8 +1403,6 @@ static void vchiq_remove(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>>
>> arm_state = vchiq_platform_get_arm_state(&mgmt->state);
>> kthread_stop(arm_state->ka_thread);
>> -
>> - kfree(mgmt);
>> }
>>
>> static struct platform_driver vchiq_driver = {
>
Am 13.10.24 um 12:36 schrieb Umang Jain:
>
>
> On 13/10/24 2:43 pm, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> Hi Umang,
>>
>> Am 13.10.24 um 10:45 schrieb Umang Jain:
>>> Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>
>> except of the missing commit message, this patch looks good to me. I
>> understand the concerns about devm_kzalloc, but I think this doesn't
>> apply in this case.
>
> That's what I was wondering as well, since I tried module unloading
> and with the cdev also goes away? So shouldn't be conern, right ?
AFAIU the problem would be if you bind the resources to the cdev, but
this isn't the case here. Btw I missed to mention that this is
considered as a fix and deserves a Fixes tag.
>
>>
>> Since this should be treated as RFC, is it already tested?
>
> yes, it was tested
>>
>> Regards
>>> ---
>>> drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 +---
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>>> b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>>> index e780ed714a14..334fb7037766 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>>> @@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device
>>> *pdev)
>>> return -ENOENT;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - mgmt = kzalloc(sizeof(*mgmt), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + mgmt = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*mgmt), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> if (!mgmt)
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> @@ -1403,8 +1403,6 @@ static void vchiq_remove(struct
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>
>>> arm_state = vchiq_platform_get_arm_state(&mgmt->state);
>>> kthread_stop(arm_state->ka_thread);
>>> -
>>> - kfree(mgmt);
>>> }
>>>
>>> static struct platform_driver vchiq_driver = {
>>
>
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.