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 <[email protected]> > >> --- 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
