On 10/19/2012 02:12 AM, anish kumar wrote: > From: anish kumar <anish198519851...@gmail.com> > > We don't need a release call in this file as we are doing > everything needed in unregister call and we don't have any > more pointer to free up. > > Signed-off-by: anish kumar <anish198519851...@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c | 4 +--- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c > index 946a318..cf30eb1 100644 > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c > @@ -585,9 +585,7 @@ static void extcon_cleanup(struct extcon_dev *edev, bool > skip) > > static void extcon_dev_release(struct device *dev) > { > - struct extcon_dev *edev = (struct extcon_dev *) dev_get_drvdata(dev); > - > - extcon_cleanup(edev, true); > + /* We don't have any thing to free here */ > } > > static const char *muex_name = "mutually_exclusive";
I can't agree this patch. The extcon_dev_release() function is used for dev->release. If some case without calling extcon_dev_unregister(), I think dev->release function is needed to free memory of edev->dev. The edev->dev->release store the function pointer of extcon_dev_release() in extcon_dev_register(). edev->dev->parent = dev; edev->dev->class = extcon_class; edev->dev->release = extcon_dev_release; Thanks, Chanwoo Choi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/