On 1/2/23 08:35, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 12/30/22 02:40, Ankit 16. Kumar (Nokia) wrote:
>>
>> The print causes false reporting of the issue which actually is a warning
>
> How did you select the commit in this Fixes tag?
>
>> Fixes: 2fe0e8769df9 ("of: overlay: check prevents multiple fragments touching same property")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ankit Kumar <ankit.16.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/of/overlay.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c index ed4e6c144a68..0da39b8461e7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c
>> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static int add_changeset_property(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs,
>> }
>>
>> if (!of_node_check_flag(target->np, OF_OVERLAY))
>> - pr_err("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, property: %pOF/%s\n",
>> + pr_warn("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed,
>> +property: %pOF/%s\n",
>> target->np, new_prop->name);
>>
>> if (ret) {
>> --
>> 2.30.1
>>
>
> NACK. This patch is incorrect. The reported memory leak is a bug, not a warning.
>
> I'll write up some information about why the memory leak occurs, then reply to this
> email with the additional info.
The additional information is now available at:
https://elinux.org/Device_Tree_Linux#Object_Lifetime
>
> -Frank
