Hi Geert,
On 21/02/18 17:07, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Auger Eric <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> If I am not wrong we also leak the reset_module if
>>> vfio_platform_get_reset() fails to find the reset function (of_reset ==
>>> NULL), in which case we should do the module_put() in
>>> vfio_platform_get_reset().
>>
>> Correct. Will look into fixing it...
>
> Upon second look, I don't think there's a leak in vfio_platform_get_reset().
>
> If try_module_get() succeeded, there will always be a valid reset function
> (unless someone registered a vfio_reset_handler with a NULL reset function).
Hum yes, you are right. So the code is fine as is. Sorry for the noise.
Thanks
Eric
>
> Or do you mean the call to request_module()?
> That one doesn't do a module_get(), it merely tries to load a module.
> Hence there's no need to do a module_put() afterwards.
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
>
