From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-vx0-f177.google.com ([209.85.220.177]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1QSmB3-0000Dp-Vb for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:25:50 +0000 Received: by vxd2 with SMTP id 2so2474546vxd.36 for ; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 01:25:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1307116515.3069.24.camel@localhost> References: <1307026293-8535-1-git-send-email-dbaryshkov@gmail.com> <1307116515.3069.24.camel@localhost> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:25:45 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 000/104] mtd: cleanup partition parsing interface From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov To: dedekind1@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 6/3/11, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 18:51 +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This is an RFC for a huge serie of patches converting most mtd drivers to >> use >> single instance of code for managing mtd partitions parsing and handling. >> >> Currently each driver responsible for partitions implements this part of >> code >> on it's own, resulting in memory leaks, possible frees of non-allocated >> memory, >> etc. As the patch serie is huge, I'm posting only patches I consider >> "interesting", i. e. from the subserie doing the same cleanup for >> different >> drivers I post only first patch. Rest are available through the gitweb. >> >> Only one driver still uses parse_mtd_partitions after this serie >> (edb7312), >> as it registers both parsed partitions and the whole mtd device and I >> ain't >> sure how to behave at this case. >> >> If the idea seems find to be commited, I'll post the whole serie for full >> review. > > Hi, sure this is interesting. I'll try to find time and go through this > and push to l2 tree. But then please, ping dwmw2 to look at this, > because otherwise it will not get to linux-next till the end of the next > merge window. I'll then rebase this on top of l2 tree and post a formal pull request with both you and dwmw2 in cc. Is this fine from your point of view? -- With best wishes Dmitry