For me, it is good :)

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com wrote:

This looks good but we should probably do the same for all return paths when reference for port has been acquired.

Please see attached patch.

Thanks, Harry

On 2016-02-01 11:08 AM, Insu Yun wrote:

...

In drm_dp_mst_allocate_vcpi, it returns true in two paths, but in one path, there is no reference couting decrease.

Signed-off-by: Insu Yun wuninsu@gmail.com

drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c index 6ed90a2..fe273b6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c @@ -2446,6 +2446,7 @@ bool drm_dp_mst_allocate_vcpi(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, struct drm_dp DRM_DEBUG_KMS("payload: vcpi %d already allocated for pbn %d - requested pbn %d\n", port->vcpi.vcpi, port->vcpi.pbn, pbn); if (pbn == port->vcpi.pbn) { *slots = port->vcpi.num_slots;

•                   drm_dp_put_port(port);
                    return true;
            }
    }