On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven >> <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The special overlay mutex is taken first, hence it should be released >>> last in the error path. >>> >>> Move "mutex_lock(&of_mutex)" up, as suggested by Frank, as >>> free_overlay_changeset() should be called with that mutex held if any >>> non-trivial cleanup is to be done. >> >> Not holding the of_mutex for of_resolve_phandles is just wrong. >> Without it, a node and new phandle could be added via of_attach_node >> making the max phandle wrong. > > After my patch it's held, so what's the problem? There's no problem. Just highlighting the issue with the prior location is more than it seems from your explanation. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
