[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1905201152040.2543@hadrien>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 11:52:37 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, wen.yang99@....com.cn,
Markus.Elfring@....de, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com, michal.lkml@...kovi.net,
nicolas.palix@...g.fr, sashal@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: semantic patch for missing of_node_put
On Mon, 20 May 2019, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > A semantic patch has no access to comments. The only thing I can see to
> > do is to use python to interact with some external tools. For example,
> > you could write some code to collect the comments in a file and the lines
> > on which they occur, and then get the comment that most closely precedes
> > the start of the function.
>
> How dangerous is missing of_node_put? AFAICT it will only result into
> very small, one-time memory leak, right?
>
> Could we make sure these patches are _not_ going to stable? Leaking
> few bytes once per boot is not really a serious bug.
Sasha,
Probably patches that add only of_node_put should not be auto selected for
stable.
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists