On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:49:21AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:37:09PM -0700, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> > +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,449 @@
[..]
> > +static void spmi_ctrl_release(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct spmi_controller *ctrl = to_spmi_controller(dev);
> > + complete(&ctrl->dev_released);
>
> When is this memory going to be freed?
>
> Ah, you think it will be when you remove the device later on:
>
> > +int spmi_del_controller(struct spmi_controller *ctrl)
> > +{
> > + struct spmi_controller *found;
> > +
> > + if (!ctrl)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + /* Check that the ctrl has been added */
> > + mutex_lock(&board_lock);
> > + found = idr_find(&ctrl_idr, ctrl->nr);
> > + mutex_unlock(&board_lock);
> > +
> > + if (found != ctrl)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + spmi_dfs_del_controller(ctrl);
> > +
> > + /* Remove all the clients associated with this controller */
> > + mutex_lock(&board_lock);
> > + bus_for_each_dev(&spmi_bus_type, NULL, ctrl, spmi_ctrl_remove_device);
> > + idr_remove(&ctrl_idr, ctrl->nr);
> > + mutex_unlock(&board_lock);
> > +
> > + init_completion(&ctrl->dev_released);
> > + device_unregister(&ctrl->dev);
> > + wait_for_completion(&ctrl->dev_released);
>
> But you just leaked memory, right?
>
> You should never have to wait for this to happen, why did you need to
> add this? Why not just a simple call to kfree() in the release
> function?
Unfortunately, the reason why this was necessary may be lost to history. :(
I'll do some testing with the completion removed and a simple kfree() in
the release and see if there is any fallout.
Thanks,
Josh
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
