On 9/27/13 12:48 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 09/27/13 11:44, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 9/27/13 8:01 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>>> Free the memory pointed to by state before returning on error from
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Tinguely<tinguely@xxxxxxx>
>>> Found by Coverity (134681) in userspace, same patch applies there
>> Heh, looks like that one has been around since the dawn of time, thanks.
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> how do we handle the matching userspace fixes, separate patch to
>> be explicit? Wait for the next syncup?
> <patch delete>
> Good question.
> The user space should be kept up to date with the kernel.
> Since the patches will be identical except the directory name, I was hoping
> to submit one copy. But I am not trying to invent a policy, just being lazy.
Was just an offhanded question; it'd just be good to know what we all expect.
I suppose that it could depend on the severity of the flaw; a minor leak before
isn't a big deal and could wait for a global sync-up; a data corruption fix
need to be quickly merged to both trees.