[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D5B54AEC-F0D6-4155-8633-27A7EFF13B3C@konsulko.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:58:03 +0200
From: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@...il.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] of: resolver: Add missing of_node_get and of_node_put
Hi Rob,
> On Feb 12, 2016, at 01:18 , Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Amitoj Kaur Chawla
> <amitoj1606@...il.com> wrote:
>> In __of_find_node_by_full_name, add an of_node_get when detecting the
>> desired element, to ensure that it ends up with a reference count that is
>> one greater than on entering the function.
>>
>> Also in __of_find_node_by_full_name, add an of_node_put on breaking
>> out of the for_each_child_of_node loop, to ensure that the reference
>> count of the returned value is not double incremented. This change
>> was made using Coccinelle.
>
> Pantelis, are you convinced this is correct (albeit somewhat pointless)?
>
This is good enough. It’s a local method and we won’t ever try to use
it outside of the resolver. We need to fix the reference counting properly
sometime in the future.
> Rob
Regards
— Pantelis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists