[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510120735060.2041@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:35:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] regulator: of: add missing of_node_put
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 2015-10-10 21:30 GMT+09:00 Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>:
> >
> > for_each_child_of_node performs an of_node_get on each iteration, so
> > a break out of the loop requires an of_node_put.
> >
> > The semantic patch that fixes this problem is as follows
> > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr):
> >
> > // <smpl>
> > @@
> > expression root,e;
> > local idexpression child;
> > @@
> >
> > for_each_child_of_node(root, child) {
> > ... when != of_node_put(child)
> > when != e = child
> > (
> > return child;
> > |
> > + of_node_put(child);
> > ? return ...;
> > )
> > ...
> > }
> > // </smpl>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c
> > index 499e437..f9d77b4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c
> > +++ b/drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c
> > @@ -274,6 +274,7 @@ int of_regulator_match(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node,
> > dev_err(dev,
> > "failed to parse DT for regulator %s\n",
> > child->name);
> > + of_node_put(child);
>
> This looks good.
>
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > match->of_node = of_node_get(child);
>
> But what about 'break' few lines below? The reference from last
> of_get_next_child() should be also dropped because... or we should
> remove this of_node_get() call.
>
> How about fixing also usage of for_each_available_child_of_node() in
> regulator_of_get_init_data()?
I'll check on all of this and resend. Thanks for the feedback.
julia
--
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