On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 13:27, <dinghao.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Ben, > > > > When gk20a_clk_ctor() returns an error code, pointer "clk" > > > should be released. It's the same when gm20b_clk_new() > > > returns from elsewhere following this call. > > This shouldn't be necessary. If a subdev constructor fails, and > > returns a pointer, the core will call the destructor to clean things > > up. > > > > I'm not familiar with the behavior of the caller of gm20b_clk_new(). > If the subdev constructor fails, the core will check the pointer > (here is "pclk"), then it's ok and there is no bug (Do you mean > this?). If the core executes error handling code only according to > the error code, there may be a memory leak bug (the caller cannot > know if -ENOMEM comes from the failure of kzalloc or gk20a_clk_ctor). > If the core always calls the destructor as long as the constructor > fails (even if the kzalloc fails), we may have a double free bug. > > Would you like to give a more detailed explanation about the behavior > of the core? If there's *any* error, it'll check the pointer, if it's non-NULL, it'll call the destructor. If kzalloc() fails, the pointer will be NULL, there's no double-free bug. *every* subdev is written this way to avoid duplicating cleanup logic. Ben. > > Regards, > Dinghao _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
