* Re: [PATCH] scsi: Fix reference count leak in iscsi_boot_create_kobj()
2020-05-29 10:09 ` Markus Elfring
@ 2020-05-29 10:09 ` Markus Elfring
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-05-29 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qiushi Wu, linux-scsi, open-iscsi
Cc: kernel-janitors, linux-kernel, Chris Leech,
James E. J. Bottomley, Kangjie Lu, Lee Duncan,
Martin K. Petersen
> kobject_init_and_add() should be handled when it return an error,
> because kobject_init_and_add() takes reference even when it fails.
I find this wording approach improvable.
> Previous commit "b8eb718348b8" fixed a similar problem.
I suggest to omit this information from the commit message.
> Thus replace calling kfree() by calling kobject_put().
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Thus replace a call of the function “kfree” by “kobject_put”
because of using kernel objects in the proper way.
Please take another look also at the message field “To”.
Which recipients should be specified there first?
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] scsi: Fix reference count leak in iscsi_boot_create_kobj()
@ 2020-05-29 10:09 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-05-29 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qiushi Wu, linux-scsi, open-iscsi
Cc: kernel-janitors, linux-kernel, Chris Leech,
James E. J. Bottomley, Kangjie Lu, Lee Duncan,
Martin K. Petersen
> kobject_init_and_add() should be handled when it return an error,
> because kobject_init_and_add() takes reference even when it fails.
I find this wording approach improvable.
> Previous commit "b8eb718348b8" fixed a similar problem.
I suggest to omit this information from the commit message.
> Thus replace calling kfree() by calling kobject_put().
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Thus replace a call of the function “kfree” by “kobject_put”
because of using kernel objects in the proper way.
Please take another look also at the message field “To”.
Which recipients should be specified there first?
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] scsi: Fix reference count leak in iscsi_boot_create_kobj()
@ 2020-05-29 10:09 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-05-29 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qiushi Wu, linux-scsi, open-iscsi
Cc: kernel-janitors, linux-kernel, Chris Leech,
James E. J. Bottomley, Kangjie Lu, Lee Duncan,
Martin K. Petersen
> kobject_init_and_add() should be handled when it return an error,
> because kobject_init_and_add() takes reference even when it fails.
I find this wording approach improvable.
> Previous commit "b8eb718348b8" fixed a similar problem.
I suggest to omit this information from the commit message.
> Thus replace calling kfree() by calling kobject_put().
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Thus replace a call of the function “kfree” by “kobject_put”
because of using kernel objects in the proper way.
Please take another look also at the message field “To”.
Which recipients should be specified there first?
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] scsi: Fix reference count leak in iscsi_boot_create_kobj()
@ 2020-05-29 10:09 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-05-29 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qiushi Wu, linux-scsi, open-iscsi
Cc: kernel-janitors, linux-kernel, Chris Leech,
James E. J. Bottomley, Kangjie Lu, Lee Duncan,
Martin K. Petersen
> kobject_init_and_add() should be handled when it return an error,
> because kobject_init_and_add() takes reference even when it fails.
I find this wording approach improvable.
> Previous commit "b8eb718348b8" fixed a similar problem.
I suggest to omit this information from the commit message.
> Thus replace calling kfree() by calling kobject_put().
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Thus replace a call of the function “kfree” by “kobject_put”
because of using kernel objects in the proper way.
Please take another look also at the message field “To”.
Which recipients should be specified there first?
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-29 10:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-05-29 10:09 [PATCH] scsi: Fix reference count leak in iscsi_boot_create_kobj() Markus Elfring
2020-05-29 10:09 ` Markus Elfring
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-05-29 10:09 Markus Elfring
2020-05-29 10:09 ` Markus Elfring
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.