[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c1a7beba-faff-e06d-1517-5b30d777b252@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 00:25:28 +0100
From: Dan Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
To: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux.walleij@...aro.org, prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com,
heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org,
robh@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, pmladek@...e.com, mchehab@...nel.org,
tian.shu.qiu@...el.com, bingbu.cao@...el.com,
sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com, yong.zhi@...el.com,
rafael@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kitakar@...il.com,
dan.carpenter@...cle.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/9] software_node: Fix failure to hold refcount in
software_node_get_next_child
Hi Sakari
On 20/10/2020 14:31, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:58:57PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:
>> The software_node_get_next_child() function currently does not hold a kref
>> to the child software_node; fix that.
>>
>> Fixes: 59abd83672f7 ("drivers: base: Introducing software nodes to the firmware node framework")
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v3:
>> - split out from the full software_node_graph*() patch
>>
>> drivers/base/swnode.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c
>> index f01b1cc61..741149b90 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c
>> @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ software_node_get_next_child(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
>> c = list_next_entry(c, entry);
>> else
>> c = list_first_entry(&p->children, struct swnode, entry);
>> - return &c->fwnode;
>> + return software_node_get(&c->fwnode);
> I believe similarly, the function should drop the reference to the previous
> node, and not expect the caller to do this. The OF equivalent does the
> same.
I think I prefer it this way myself, since the alternative is having to
explicitly call *_node_get() on a returned child if you want to keep it
but also keep iterating. But I agree that it's important to take a
consistent approach. I'll add that too; this will mean
swnode_graph_find_next_port() and
software_node_graph_get_next_endpoint() in patch 4 of this series will
need changing slightly to square away their references.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists