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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 00:09:56 +0530 (GMT+05:30)
From: Shresth Prasad <shresthprasad7@...il.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: vincenzo.mezzela@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.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()

19 Apr 2024 11:56:47 pm Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>:

> 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/
I'm very new to using mailing lists, sorry for any confusion. I was indeed using the reply option on lore. I'll be more careful next.

Is there anyway to remove the incorrect reply from this thread?

Regards,
Shresth Prasad