On 1/10/23 00:23, Frank Rowand wrote:
> 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
I have now expanded the information at that link to content that is beyond
the original topic. Those interested in devicetree memory object may find
the additional info useful.
>
>>
>> -Frank
>
