[patch v2] drm/msm/dsi: free first element on error

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Jani Nikula
<jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 02:27:08PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> >> We're off by one here.  We free something that wasn't allocated and we
>>> >> don't free msm_host->bus_clks[].
>>> >>
>>> >> Fixes: 6e0eb52eba9e ("drm/msm/dsi: Parse bus clocks from a list")
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com>
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> > Reviewed-by: Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> And for good measure,
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
>>
>> So 2 r-b from maintainers, no one said he'll apply. This isn't really
>> great coordination :-) Note that drm-misc-next is always open, so you
>> could always smash it in there, irrespective of merge window state. hint,
>> hint ...
>
> Admittedly I shied away from touching drm/msm.

Well that's kinda my point, we have a pile of maintainers who could
push this, which means if no one says they do, the patch will likely
get lost. Especially if the main maintainer (Rob here) smashes an r-b
onto a patch it's super confusing, at least to me.

I guess this is a downside to having lots of committers, and I started
to stumble over this in a bunch of places. I think as a rule we should
always state when we plan to or have merged a patch, and if it's just
an r-b assume it's lost ... At least that's how I deal with core
refactorings touching drivers, otherwise we'd probably never get them
all landed.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch