On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 08:24:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 7:18 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 06:46:44PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > On 1/23/23 18:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev() gets ACPI device with the bumped > > > > refcount. The caller must drop it when it's done. > > > > > > > > Fix ACPI device refcounting in apple_gmux_backlight_present(). ... > > > Thank you for your work on this, much appreciated and I like > > > the new acpi_get_first_match_physical_node(). > > > > > > But I don't think this patch is a good idea. There is a > > > regression related to apple_gmux_backlight_present() > > > with a patch-set fixing it pending. > > > > > > And that patch-set actually removes this function. Adding > > > a fix for this real, but not really important leak now, > > > will just make backporting the actual fix harder. > > > > > > So I would prefer for this patch to not go in and to > > > go for (a to be submitted v2) of the patch-set fixing > > > the regression right away instead. > > > > Maybe I missed something, but I noticed that you actually moved (not killed) > > the code which is currently in this function. If it's the case, I prefer my > > fix to be imported first. > > Well, what about making the new code not leak? > > That way the separate fix won't be necessary any more, will it? Yes, it will. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
