Messages in this thread | | | From | Rob Herring <> | Date | Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:00:03 -0600 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] of: refcount leak when phandle_cache entry replaced |
| |
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:17 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12/11/19 2:18 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 02:14:53 -0600, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com> > >> > >> of_find_node_by_phandle() does not do an of_node_put() of the existing > >> node in a phandle cache entry when that node is replaced by a new node. > >> > >> Reported-by: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> > >> Fixes: b8a9ac1a5b99 ("of: of_node_get()/of_node_put() nodes held in phandle cache") > >> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com> > >> --- > >> > >> Checkpatch will warn about a line over 80 characters. Let me know > >> if that bothers you. > >> > >> drivers/of/base.c | 2 ++ > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >> > > > > Applied, thanks. > > > > Rob > > > > If the rework patch of the cache that you posted shortly after accepting > my patch, then my patch becomes not needed and is just extra noise in the > history. Once your patch finishes review (I am assuming it probably > will), then my patch should be reverted.
The question is what to backport: nothing, this patch or mine? My thought was to apply this mainly to backport. If you're fine with nothing or mine, then we can drop it. I'm a bit nervous marking mine for stable.
Rob
| |