linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers: use __free attribute instead of of_node

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]

Message-ID: <20240419182642.b7li4mlnvryephhg@bogus>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:26:42 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Shresth Prasad <shresthprasad7@...il.com>
Cc: vincenzo.mezzela@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rafael@...nel.org, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: use __free attribute instead of of_node_put()

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:16:37PM +0530, Shresth Prasad wrote:
> > Please fix the subject line to be "backlight: <driver>: ...". I came
> > very close to deleting this patch without reading it ;-) .
> 
> Really sorry about that, I'll fix it.
> 
> > Do we need to get dev->of_node at all? The device, which we are
> > borrowing, already owns a reference to the node so I don't see
> > any point in this function taking an extra one.
> >
> > So why not simply make this:
> >
> >     struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> 
> Looking at it again, I'm not sure why the call to of_node_put is there in
> the first place. I think removing it would be fine.
> 
> I'll fix both of these issues and send a patch v2.

I assume you are using lore "Reply using the --to, --cc, and..." option
or something similar.

You seem to have mixed up 2 different message ID. I was not able to make
any sense of this email.

You have wrongly used [1] but you really want [2]. I think both have
very similar $subject and hence the confusion. Another reason
why getting subject right is very important on the mailing list.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

[1] 20240419131956.665769-1-vincenzo.mezzela@...il.com
(https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240419131956.665769-1-vincenzo.mezzela@gmail.com/)
[2] 20240419111613.GA12884@...en.lan
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240419111613.GA12884@aspen.lan/