[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160419170637.GB2881@dtor-ws>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:06:37 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@...escale.com>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...a-handheld.com, letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] input: twl6040-vibra: fix DT node memory management
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:43:08AM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>
> > Am 18.04.2016 um 23:22 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:55:37PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> >> commit e7ec014a47e4 ("Input: twl6040-vibra - update for device tree support")
> >>
> >> made the separate vibra DT node to a subnode of the twl6040.
> >>
> >> It now calls of_find_node_by_name() to locate the "vibra" subnode.
> >> This function has a side effect to call of_node_put on() for the twl6040
> >> parent node passed in as a parameter. This causes trouble later on.
> >>
> >> Solution: we must call of_node_get() before of_find_node_by_name()
> >
> > God, what messed up API.
>
> Yes, indeed. It is opposite to the usual object ownership rule that the code
> fragment that asks for a handle has to release it.
>
> Usually it does not become obvious because often CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC=n.
> This disables all of_node refcounting completely so such bugs remain unnoticed.
>
> > Any chance we can make it a bit more sane and
> > not drop the reference inside it instead?
>
> Well, if you want to change ~2000 files, test on all platforms and ask Linus
> for agreement?
It's not that bad, let's see what DT maintainers say to the patch I
posted...
--
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists