[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6931f3fbae919_1e0210062@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 12:50:03 -0800
From: <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Cheatham, Benjamin" <benjamin.cheatham@....com>, Dan Williams
<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <dave.jiang@...el.com>
CC: <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>, <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
<terry.bowman@....com>, <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Alejandro Lucero
<alucerop@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] cxl/mem: Convert devm_cxl_add_memdev() to
scope-based-cleanup
Cheatham, Benjamin wrote:
[..]
> > - rc = devm_add_action_or_reset(host, cxl_memdev_unregister, cxlmd);
> > + rc = devm_add_action_or_reset(host, cxl_memdev_unregister,
> > + no_free_ptr(cxlmd));
> > if (rc)
> > return ERR_PTR(rc);
> > return cxlmd;
>
> Isn't cxlmd zeroed out by no_free_ptr() above? I think what needs to happen here is:
>
> rc = devm_add_action_or_reset(host, cxl_memdev_unregister, cxlmd);
> if (rc) {
> no_free_ptr(cxlmd);
> return ERR_PTR(rc);
> }
>
> return_ptr(cxlmd);
>
> Looking ahead, this gets nullified in patch 6/6 so I guess it's only an issue if
> someone is in the middle of a bisect (or doesn't pick up patch 6/6 for some reason).
Good catch! ...and no, I should not leave that bisect problem in the set.
Will pull the cxl_memdev_autoremove() change forward for that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists