On 04/24/18 10:50, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2018-04-24 19:44, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 04/24/18 09:19, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Only the overlay notifier callbacks have a chance to potentially get >>> hold of references to those two resources, but they do not store them. >>> So it is safe to stop the intentional leaking. >>> >>> See also https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/23/1063 and following. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >>> Ideally, we sort out any remaining worries during the 4.17-rc cycle. >>> >>> drivers/of/overlay.c | 13 ++----------- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c >>> index b35fe88f1851..3553f1f57a62 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c >>> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c >>> @@ -671,17 +671,8 @@ static void free_overlay_changeset(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs) >>> of_node_put(ovcs->fragments[i].overlay); >>> } >>> kfree(ovcs->fragments); >>> - >>> - /* >>> - * TODO >>> - * >>> - * would like to: kfree(ovcs->overlay_tree); >>> - * but can not since drivers may have pointers into this data >>> - * >>> - * would like to: kfree(ovcs->fdt); >>> - * but can not since drivers may have pointers into this data >>> - */ >>> - >>> + kfree(ovcs->overlay_tree); >>> + kfree(ovcs->fdt); >>> kfree(ovcs); >>> } >>> >>> >> >> Nack. It is premature to submit this while the conversation is >> continuing in the other thread. >> >> I'll continue the conversation in the other thread. >> > > Well, at least the strongest argument has been resolved now, the > notifier topic. Curious to learn what remains. As I noted, we should > work hard to sort out the API regression prior to the release. Nope, the notifier discussion continues in the other thread. -- 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
