Re: GPU-DRM-Savage: Less function calls in savage_bci_cmdbuf() after error detection

From	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: GPU-DRM-Savage: Less function calls in savage_bci_cmdbuf() after error detection
Date	2016-10-12 14:20 +0200
Message-ID	<srqFP-4gb-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qEuGl-43C-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <s7Hzz-817-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <s7HJg-84B-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <s7MSC-2Nt-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

>> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:28:58 +0200
>>
>> The kfree() function was called in a few cases by the
>> savage_bci_cmdbuf() function during error handling
>> even if a passed variable contained a null pointer.
>>
>> Adjust jump targets according to the Linux coding style convention.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> 
> Not sure this is worth it, I'll pass. Patch 1 merged.

Unfortunately, it seems that this selection of only one update step
from this small patch series has got unwanted consequences.

Will the update suggestion “[patch] drm/savage: dereferencing an error pointer”
by Dan Carpenter (from today) trigger further software development discussions?

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9372127/
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<20161012062227.GU12841@mwanda>


Will an update step like “[PATCH 2/2] GPU-DRM-Savage: Less function calls in
savage_bci_cmdbuf() after error detection” (from 2016-08-18) become worth
for related consideratons once more?

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9289183/
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<c97563c0-d463-8b15-5956-26d93641a54f@users.sourceforge.net>

Regards,
Markus

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: GPU-DRM-Savage: Less function calls in savage_bci_cmdbuf() after  error detection SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-12 14:20 +0200

csiph-web