[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <efe8fb3a-eb4a-a50a-c53a-0879a912fbd8@web.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:43:14 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: ppc_cbe: fix possible object reference leak
> The call to of_get_cpu_node returns a node pointer with refcount
> incremented thus it must be explicitly decremented after the last
> usage.
I would prefer a wording like the following.
A reference counter was incremented for a CPU node by a call of
the function “of_get_cpu_node”.
Thus decrement it after the last usage.
> Detected by coccinelle with the following warnings:
I wonder about the shown duplicate notification.
Can a single message be sufficient for the code search result
in this source file?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists