On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:03 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:25:02AM -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote: > > If the device register fails, free the allocated memory before > > returning. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <[email protected]> > > Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices") > > --- > > lib/kunit/device.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/device.c b/lib/kunit/device.c > > index 25c81ed465fb..d8c09dcb3e79 100644 > > --- a/lib/kunit/device.c > > +++ b/lib/kunit/device.c > > @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ static struct kunit_device > > *kunit_device_register_internal(struct kunit *test, > > err = device_register(&kunit_dev->dev); > > if (err) { > > put_device(&kunit_dev->dev); > > + kfree(kunit_dev); > > This still looks wrong, the release function for the device should free > the memory here, not this kfree, as the reference count in the embedded > 'struct device' handles the memory logic for the whole structure (if > not, then something is REALLY wrong...) > > You _do_ have a release function for the device, right? If not, you > should be getting loud messages in the kernel log when releasing a > device here. >
Ok, I got it. Yes, there is a release function. So this patch is wrong, ignore it. Should I send a v5 with only the other patch? > thanks, > > greg k-h >
