linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] of: reserved-memory: Add of_reserved_mem_lookup_by

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: <462402ce-22cf-492b-bc40-bd9dbc3a2f16@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 13:24:02 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
 Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
 Bill Mills <bill.mills@...aro.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
 Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
 Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@....com>,
 "Edgar E . Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@....com>,
 Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] of: reserved-memory: Add
 of_reserved_mem_lookup_by_name

On 30/07/2025 12:57, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-07-25, 11:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 30/07/2025 11:29, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> +	struct device_node *child __free(device_node) = NULL;
>>
>> This should not be NULL or this should not be cleanup. Follow coding
>> style for cleanup - constructor must be real here.
> 
> I may have misunderstood how cleanup works, but this is what I
> thought:
> 
> The cleanup is defined in of.h as:
> 
> DEFINE_FREE(device_node, struct device_node *, if (_T) of_node_put(_T))
> 
> 
> Doesn't this mean that it handles the case where `child` is NULL, by
> not calling of_node_put() ? So it should either be a valid constructor
> or NULL and not some stale value.

I am speaking about coding style. It's explicitly requested to use only
the full constructor syntax (see long time Linus' remark or just read
cleanup.h docs).

NULL is allowed in certain cases, but the code here does not look like
needing it in the first place.

Best regards,
Krzysztof