linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] of: automate of_node_put()

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:47:56 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Frank Rowand
 <frowand.list@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Julia Lawall
 <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Nicolas
 Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>, Sumera Priyadarsini
 <sylphrenadin@...il.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len
 Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:03:29 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 05:42:28PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> > 
> > Since RFC:
> > - Provide a for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() variant and
> >   use that whenever we aren't specifically trying to include disabled
> >   nodes.
> > - Fix the for_each_child_of_node_scoped() to not use a mix of
> >   _available_ and other calls.
> > - Include a few more examples.  The last one is there to show that
> >   not all uses of the __free(device_node) call are due to the loops.  
> 
> I'm a bit skeptical about need of this work. What I would prefer to see
> is getting rid of OF-centric drivers in IIO. With that, we would need
> only fwnode part to be properly implemented.
> 

To be honest main reason for doing of first was that they have unit tests :)

The IIO drivers were more of a proving ground than cases I really cared
out cleaning up.  However I'm always of the view that better to make
some improvement now than wait for a perfect improvement later.

However one or two are not going to be converted to fwnode handling
any time soon because they make use of phandle based referencing for
driver specific hook ups that isn't going to get generic handling any
time soon.

I'll probably focus on getting the fwnode version of this moving
forwards first though and 'maybe' convert a few of the easier ones
of these over to that framework to reduce how many users of this
we end up with in IIO.

Jonathan