On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 06:03:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 06:01:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:59:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:52:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > Insulate of_device_alloc() and of_amba_device_create() from possible > > > > changes to fwnode_handle implementation by using device_set_node() > > > > instead of open-coding dev->dev.fwnode assignments. > > > > > > Side note. When I preparing this change I have noticed a lot of > > > > > > dev_set_name(... dev_name()) > > > > Plus > > > > dev_set_name(dev, ...) > > ... > > dev_set_name(dev, ...) > > > > on the same device will also give a memory leak. > > Ah, seems false alarm, the kobject_set_name_vargs() frees the old one. > Sorry for the noise for second point. But the first one still applies. > > > > in the code which seems to me problematic in two ways: > > > 1) (minor) the dev_set_name() may fail, no checks are there; Is there anything besides a memory alloc failure? What will print a message already. Wouldn't we fail a bit later on when adding the device anyways? In a rough count, 92 out of 500 cases check the return of dev_set_name(). Rob
