Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:51:44 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rtc: avoid calling platform_device_put() twice in test_init() |
| |
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:08:41 +0800 Wei Yongjun <weiyj.lk@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn> > > In case of error, the function test_init() need to call > platform_device_del() instead of platform_device_unregister(). > Otherwise, we may call platform_device_put() twice. > > dpatch engine is used to auto generate this patch. > (https://github.com/weiyj/dpatch) > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn> > --- > drivers/rtc/rtc-test.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-test.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-test.c > index 7e96254..209a127 100644 > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-test.c > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-test.c > @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ static int __init test_init(void) > return 0; > > exit_device_unregister: > - platform_device_unregister(test0); > + platform_device_del(test0); > > exit_free_test1: > platform_device_put(test1);
Is platform_device_del() the partner to platform_device_add()? If so then yes, this looks right. But I think the labels can be improved:
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-test.c~rtc-avoid-calling-platform_device_put-twice-in-test_init-fix +++ a/drivers/rtc/rtc-test.c @@ -152,24 +152,24 @@ static int __init test_init(void) if ((test1 = platform_device_alloc("rtc-test", 1)) == NULL) { err = -ENOMEM; - goto exit_free_test0; + goto exit_put_test0; } if ((err = platform_device_add(test0))) - goto exit_free_test1; + goto exit_put_test1; if ((err = platform_device_add(test1))) - goto exit_device_unregister; + goto exit_del_test0; return 0; -exit_device_unregister: +exit_del_test0: platform_device_del(test0); -exit_free_test1: +exit_put_test1: platform_device_put(test1); -exit_free_test0: +exit_put_test0: platform_device_put(test0); exit_driver_unregister: _
However, take a look at test_exit(). it does platform_device_unregister(test0) when test0 is in the same state. Is that code wrong as well? Presumably it's working OK?
| |