Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1499508 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#1499508 — Re: GPU-DRM-Savage: Less function calls in savage_bci_cmdbuf() after error detection

>> 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

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web