lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Kernel] [PATCH 1/5] input: twl6040-vibra: fix DT node memory management
From
Date
Hi Dmitry,

> Am 20.04.2016 um 11:03 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com>:
>
>
>> Am 19.04.2016 um 19:06 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:43:08AM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 18.04.2016 um 23:22 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:55:37PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>>> commit e7ec014a47e4 ("Input: twl6040-vibra - update for device tree support")
>>>>>
>>>>> made the separate vibra DT node to a subnode of the twl6040.
>>>>>
>>>>> It now calls of_find_node_by_name() to locate the "vibra" subnode.
>>>>> This function has a side effect to call of_node_put on() for the twl6040
>>>>> parent node passed in as a parameter. This causes trouble later on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Solution: we must call of_node_get() before of_find_node_by_name()
>>>>
>>>> God, what messed up API.
>>>
>>> Yes, indeed. It is opposite to the usual object ownership rule that the code
>>> fragment that asks for a handle has to release it.
>>>
>>> Usually it does not become obvious because often CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC=n.
>>> This disables all of_node refcounting completely so such bugs remain unnoticed.
>>>
>>>> Any chance we can make it a bit more sane and
>>>> not drop the reference inside it instead?
>>>
>>> Well, if you want to change ~2000 files, test on all platforms and ask Linus
>>> for agreement?
>>
>> It's not that bad, let's see what DT maintainers say to the patch I
>> posted...
>
> Thanks! Would make me more happy a well.

Any progress on this?

BR,
Nikolaus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-08 09:01    [W:0.094 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site