Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] USB: trancevibrator: simplify tv_probe

[Dongliang Mu]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 5:06 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 05:02:09PM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > From: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The function tv_probe does not need to invoke kfree when the
> > allocation fails. So let's simplify the code of tv_probe.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/usb/misc/trancevibrator.c | 11 ++---------
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/trancevibrator.c b/drivers/usb/misc/trancevibrator.c
> > index 55cb63652eda..30d4d774d448 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/trancevibrator.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/trancevibrator.c
> > @@ -84,22 +84,15 @@ static int tv_probe(struct usb_interface *interface,
> >  {
> >       struct usb_device *udev = interface_to_usbdev(interface);
> >       struct trancevibrator *dev;
> > -     int retval;
> >
> >       dev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct trancevibrator), GFP_KERNEL);
> > -     if (!dev) {
> > -             retval = -ENOMEM;
> > -             goto error;
> > -     }
> > +     if (!dev)
> > +             return -ENOMEM;
> >
> >       dev->udev = usb_get_dev(udev);
> >       usb_set_intfdata(interface, dev);
> >
> >       return 0;
> > -
> > -error:
> > -     kfree(dev);
> > -     return retval;
> >  }
> >
> >  static void tv_disconnect(struct usb_interface *interface)
> > --
> > 2.35.1
> >
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
> a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> kernel tree.
>
> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> as indicated below:
>
> - This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
>   did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
>   Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
>   kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what needs to be done
>   here to properly describe this.

Sorry, Greg. I forget to add the changes:

v1->v2: fix the truncated subject of PATCH 2/2.

Shall I resend another v2 patch with change information or send a v3
patch with this information?
>
> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> from other developers.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h's patch email bot