[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130410190327.a70d4c3798509d664aef2f13@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:03:27 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: <Yuantian.Tang@...escale.com>
Cc: <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rob.herring@...xeda.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: remove the unnecessary of_node_put for
of_parse_phandle_with_args()
Hi,
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:56:09 +0800 <Yuantian.Tang@...escale.com> wrote:
>
> From: Tang Yuantian <yuantian.tang@...escale.com>
>
> As the function itself says it is caller's responsibility to call the
> of_node_put(). So, remove it on success to keep the reference count
> correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tang Yuantian <Yuantian.Tang@...escale.com>
> ---
> drivers/of/base.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
> index 321d3ef..e8b4c28 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
> @@ -1168,9 +1168,6 @@ static int __of_parse_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np,
> out_args->args[i] = be32_to_cpup(list++);
> }
>
> - /* Found it! return success */
> - if (node)
> - of_node_put(node);
Actually, if out_args is NULL, you should do the of_node_put(node), so
probably the correct fix is to add an "else" before the above "if" (and
move the comment).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists