[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5299CB38.8090808@linux.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:25:44 +0100
From: Levente Kurusa <levex@...ux.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
EDAC <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device_register failure
2013-11-30 12:12, Borislav Petkov:
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 08:30:33AM +0100, Levente Kurusa wrote:
>> No, if the call to put_device gives up the last reference to the
>> device, then device_release gets called which in turn frees the memory
>> associated with it. In this case, mce_device_release() will get
>> called, which is just a simple kfree call.
>
> Aah, that's that delayed freeing the driver core does, right. Now you
> made me go and look into detail:
>
> device_unregister
> |->put_device
> |->kobject_put
> |->kref_put(&kobj->kref, kobject_release)
> |->kref_sub(kref, 1, release)
> |->release
> |->kobject_release
> |->kobject_cleanup
> |->t->release
> |->device_release
> |->mce_device_release
>
Now this tree makes me wonder if there are devices where
the author forgot to set a device_release or when the put_device
is not called. I will take a look into this.
>
> Ok, I see it now. :-) :-)
>
> Thanks, I'll take your patch as-is.
>
Awesome, thanks! :-)
--
Regards,
Levente Kurusa
--
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