On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:11:02PM +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote:
> On 03/08/2013 06:47 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 09:21:45AM +0100, Samuel Iglesias
> > Gonsalvez wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <sigles...@igalia.com>
> >> --- drivers/ipack/ipack.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1
> >> insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/ipack/ipack.c b/drivers/ipack/ipack.c index
> >> 7ec6b20..599d4ff 100644 --- a/drivers/ipack/ipack.c +++
> >> b/drivers/ipack/ipack.c @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ static void
> >> ipack_device_release(struct device *dev) { struct ipack_device
> >> *device = to_ipack_dev(dev); kfree(device->id); + device->id =
> >> NULL;
> >
> > How does that keep anything from being freed twice?
> >
> >> device->release(device);
> >
> > device should now be gone after this call, right? What am I
> > missing?
> >
>
> Yes, you are right. It's not possible to have it freed twice once it's
> in ipack_device_release().
>
> You can skip this patch. If you want, I can resend the others accordingly.
If the others require this one to be applied, in order for them to apply
properly, yes, it would be great to resend. If not, I'll just skip the
first one.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester
Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the
endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to
tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Industrypack-devel mailing list
Industrypack-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/industrypack-devel
