| Message ID | 20200327204729.397-1-amadeuszx.slawinski@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | ASoC: topology: Propagate error appropriately | expand |
On 3/27/20 3:47 PM, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote: > v1: > Check if kstrdup succeeded. > > v2: > Remove unneeded freeing, which is performed in another place by dobj > handlers. > > Additionally for functions which have return status which was ignored, > perform success checks and handle failures in appropriate way. > > Amadeusz Sławiński (6): > ASoC: topology: Add missing memory checks > ASoC: topology: Check return value of soc_tplg_create_tlv > ASoC: topology: Check return value of soc_tplg_*_create > ASoC: topology: Check soc_tplg_add_route return value > ASoC: topology: Check return value of pcm_new_ver > ASoC: topology: Check return value of soc_tplg_dai_config Looks good to me Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> We probably want Ranjani to double-check this series though. > > sound/soc/soc-topology.c | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) >
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 11:40 AM Amadeusz Sławiński < amadeuszx.slawinski@linux.intel.com> wrote: > v1: > Check if kstrdup succeeded. > > v2: > Remove unneeded freeing, which is performed in another place by dobj > handlers. > > Additionally for functions which have return status which was ignored, > perform success checks and handle failures in appropriate way. > > Amadeusz Sławiński (6): > ASoC: topology: Add missing memory checks > ASoC: topology: Check return value of soc_tplg_create_tlv > ASoC: topology: Check return value of soc_tplg_*_create > ASoC: topology: Check soc_tplg_add_route return value > ASoC: topology: Check return value of pcm_new_ver > ASoC: topology: Check return value of soc_tplg_dai_config Thanks, Amadeusz. LGTM Reviewed-by: Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>
On 3/30/2020 6:38 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > On 3/27/20 3:47 PM, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote: >> v1: >> Check if kstrdup succeeded. >> >> v2: >> Remove unneeded freeing, which is performed in another place by dobj >> handlers. >> >> Additionally for functions which have return status which was ignored, >> perform success checks and handle failures in appropriate way. >> >> Amadeusz Sławiński (6): >> ASoC: topology: Add missing memory checks >> ASoC: topology: Check return value of soc_tplg_create_tlv >> ASoC: topology: Check return value of soc_tplg_*_create >> ASoC: topology: Check soc_tplg_add_route return value >> ASoC: topology: Check return value of pcm_new_ver >> ASoC: topology: Check return value of soc_tplg_dai_config > > Looks good to me > > Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> > > We probably want Ranjani to double-check this series though. > Hi Ranjani, can you take another look, I would like for this to get merged before I forget about it ;) >> >> sound/soc/soc-topology.c | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- >> 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) >>
>> Looks good to me >> >> Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> >> >> We probably want Ranjani to double-check this series though. >> > > Hi Ranjani, can you take another look, I would like for this to get > merged before I forget about it ;) Ranjani provided her Reviewed-by tag on March 30 - likely our emails crossed.
On 4/8/2020 4:20 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > >>> Looks good to me >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> >>> >>> We probably want Ranjani to double-check this series though. >>> >> >> Hi Ranjani, can you take another look, I would like for this to get >> merged before I forget about it ;) > > Ranjani provided her Reviewed-by tag on March 30 - likely our emails > crossed. That's probably what happened, I only asked, because "double-check" comment above caused me to think it may need another look. Thanks, for confirming it's good.
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 16:46 +0200, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote: > > On 4/8/2020 4:20 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > Looks good to me > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart < > > > > pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > We probably want Ranjani to double-check this series though. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ranjani, can you take another look, I would like for this to > > > get > > > merged before I forget about it ;) > > > > Ranjani provided her Reviewed-by tag on March 30 - likely our > > emails > > crossed. > > That's probably what happened, I only asked, because "double-check" > comment above caused me to think it may need another look. Thanks, > for > confirming it's good. Sorry for the confusion, Amadeusz/Pierre. Yes, I didnt want to reply and add noise as I had already reviewed the series. Thanks, Ranjani