This reverts commit eb2cb7dab60f ("staging: fbtft: fix potential memory
leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()").

An updated patch has been added as commit 505bffe21233 ("staging:
fbtft: fix potential memory leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()"),
and so reverting the old patch.

Signed-off-by: Abdun Nihaal <abdun.nihaal@gmail.com>
---
Newly added in v4.

 drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
index d920164e7710..8538b6bab6a5 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
@@ -695,7 +695,6 @@ struct fb_info *fbtft_framebuffer_alloc(struct fbtft_display *display,
 cleanup_deferred:
 	fb_deferred_io_cleanup(info);
 release_framebuf:
-	fb_deferred_io_cleanup(info);
 	framebuffer_release(info);
 
 alloc_fail:
-- 
2.43.0

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:10:22PM +0530, Abdun Nihaal wrote:
> This reverts commit eb2cb7dab60f ("staging: fbtft: fix potential memory
> leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()").
> 
> An updated patch has been added as commit 505bffe21233 ("staging:
> fbtft: fix potential memory leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()"),
> and so reverting the old patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Abdun Nihaal <abdun.nihaal@gmail.com>
> ---

This is the wrong approach.  The original patch was fine.  Just
write the next patches on top of that.

regards,
dan carpenter

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:10:22PM +0530, Abdun Nihaal wrote:
> This reverts commit eb2cb7dab60f ("staging: fbtft: fix potential memory
> leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()").
> 
> An updated patch has been added as commit 505bffe21233 ("staging:
> fbtft: fix potential memory leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()"),
> and so reverting the old patch.

Revert has its automatic line, please do not remove it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 04:48:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:10:22PM +0530, Abdun Nihaal wrote:
> > This reverts commit eb2cb7dab60f ("staging: fbtft: fix potential memory
> > leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()").
> > 
> > An updated patch has been added as commit 505bffe21233 ("staging:
> > fbtft: fix potential memory leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()"),
> > and so reverting the old patch.
> 
> Revert has its automatic line, please do not remove it.

Why?

I hate the revert format.  It is from when git was invented in 2005.
It sets you up for failure.  These days we have so many other things
that we want in patches.

1) The subsystem prefix in the subject
2) The 12 character hashes
3) A proper commit message
4) A Fixes tag

The automated revert commit messages don't have any of that.  It's
always better to hand write them.

regards,
dan carpenter

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 05:16:07PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 04:48:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:10:22PM +0530, Abdun Nihaal wrote:
> > > This reverts commit eb2cb7dab60f ("staging: fbtft: fix potential memory
> > > leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()").
> > > 
> > > An updated patch has been added as commit 505bffe21233 ("staging:
> > > fbtft: fix potential memory leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()"),
> > > and so reverting the old patch.
> > 
> > Revert has its automatic line, please do not remove it.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I hate the revert format.  It is from when git was invented in 2005.
> It sets you up for failure.  These days we have so many other things
> that we want in patches.
> 
> 1) The subsystem prefix in the subject
> 2) The 12 character hashes
> 3) A proper commit message
> 4) A Fixes tag
> 
> The automated revert commit messages don't have any of that.  It's
> always better to hand write them.

There are tools out there that expect the "traditional" format, so it's
good to keep them if at all possible.

But I agree, for this one it doesn't make sense, just do a fixup patch
on top of the current tree.  It's just a staging driver, not a big deal :)

thanks,

greg k-h