linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next] powerpc/powermac: Add missing of_node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200812071509.09091.npalix@diku.dk>
Date:	Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:09:08 +0100
From:	Nicolas Palix <npalix@...u.dk>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] powerpc/powermac: Add missing of_node_put

On Sunday 07 December 2008 06:43:33 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:31:00 +1100 Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really in two minds about applying any of the of_node_put patches
> > that only affect powermacs.  The reference counts only matter on
> > platforms where we update the OF device tree at runtime, which is
> > currently only IBM pSeries machines.  Since we don't have any hotplug
> > on powermacs, and never will have, the OF device tree is completely
> > static and we don't actually need refcounts on the nodes at all, so
> > who cares if they're a bit higher than they might be?
> > 
> > In particular, the VIA whose node we're looking for here is built-in
> > on the motherboard, and there can never be more than one, and it can
> > never be removed.
> 
> I my mind it is about consistent use of the API and good examples for
> people to copy.  Also, in about a year you will be presented with the
> same set of patches when a new pair of eyes looks at the same code and
> notices the discrepancy ...
> 
Hi Andrew,

Indeed, there is an updated version of this patch in my second mail
which fixes this issue.
 
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/3/88
 
Moreover, there is still a reference count unbalanced with your patch in the
case where the function returns 1.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Palix
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/