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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 08:21:00AM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> 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?

v3 please.