On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:40:49AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > > On Thursday 22 February 2018 11:49 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:47:06PM +0100, Rolf Evers-Fischer wrote: > >> From: Rolf Evers-Fischer <rolf.evers.fisc...@aptiv.com> > >> > >> This commit decreases the number of jump labels and ensures > >> that the next commit doesn't increase the number of occurrences > >> of 'kfree(func_name)'. > >> > >> Change-Id: I0d1b6fd652395b85f82b11c43bf9b7db512854d1 > >> Signed-off-by: Rolf Evers-Fischer <rolf.evers.fisc...@aptiv.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Rolf Evers-Fischer <embedde...@evers-fischer.de> > >> --- > >> drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epf-core.c | 7 ++----- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epf-core.c > >> b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epf-core.c > >> index 766ce1dca2ec..23d0e128d1a5 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epf-core.c > >> +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epf-core.c > >> @@ -220,9 +220,10 @@ struct pci_epf *pci_epf_create(const char *name) > >> *buf = '\0'; > >> > >> epf->name = kstrdup(func_name, GFP_KERNEL); > >> + kfree(func_name); > > > > I am certainly missing something but what if we reworked the code > > and just: > > > > kstrdup(name, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > once instead of allocating another local copy (that we then have to > > free) ? > > name will be something like pci_epf_test.0 and in epf->name we want to just > have pci_epf_test. > > > > Reworded: why > > > > epf->name = func_name; > > memory should be allocated for epf->name before it can be initialized. IMO > without kstrdup, there will be a null pointer exception.
I understand that but the point is that func_name *was* allocated with kstrdup() already I would like to understand why we need to do it twice (and kfree the first allocation). Lorenzo