[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <52770837.5000901@samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:36:39 +0900
From: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
To: "Wang, Xiaoming" <xiaoming.wang@...el.com>
Cc: "myungjoo.ham@...sung.com" <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Dongxing" <dongxing.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [extcon]:remove freed groups caused the panic or warning
in unregister flow
On 11/04/2013 11:07 AM, Wang, Xiaoming wrote:
> Dear Choi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chanwoo Choi [mailto:cw00.choi@...sung.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:43 AM
> To: Wang, Xiaoming
> Cc: myungjoo.ham@...sung.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng; Zhang, Dongxing
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [extcon]:remove freed groups caused the panic or warning in unregister flow
>
> Hi Wang,
>
>> drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c
>> b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c index 148382f..48f4669 100644
>> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c
>> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c
>> @@ -794,6 +794,8 @@ void extcon_dev_unregister(struct extcon_dev *edev)
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> + device_unregister(edev->dev);
>> +
>> if (edev->mutually_exclusive && edev->max_supported) {
>> for (index = 0; edev->mutually_exclusive[index];
>> index++)
>> @@ -814,7 +816,6 @@ void extcon_dev_unregister(struct extcon_dev *edev)
>> if (switch_class)
>> class_compat_remove_link(switch_class, edev->dev, NULL); #endif
>> - device_unregister(edev->dev);
>> put_device(edev->dev);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(extcon_dev_unregister);
>>
>
> I think we could only apply following patch instead of moving the position of device_unregister().
>
> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c index 148382f..ff27b19 100644
> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c
> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c
> @@ -805,10 +805,8 @@ void extcon_dev_unregister(struct extcon_dev *edev)
> for (index = 0; index < edev->max_supported; index++)
> kfree(edev->cables[index].attr_g.name);
>
> - if (edev->max_supported) {
> - kfree(edev->extcon_dev_type.groups);
> + if (edev->max_supported)
> kfree(edev->cables);
> - }
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_ANDROID)
> if (switch_class)
>
> Thanks,
> Chanwoo Choi
>
> I don't agree with you.
> Why do not you want moving the position of device_unregister()?
> It will cause the memory leak if has not kfree edev->extcon_dev_type.groups as your patch do firstly. And if you think kfree edev->extcon_dev_type.groups is meaningless well then kfree edev->extcon_dev_type.groups in function exton_dev_register (line 756)also should be removed I think. What do you think?
>
As you comment, my opinion has memory leak problem. My mistake.
But, I prefer to call 'device_unregister' at the end of extcon_dev_unregister().
To resolve kernel panic, I think we could use 'devm_kzalloc' instead of kzalloc/kfree.
What is your opinion about my approach?
Thanks,
Chanwoo Choi
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists