On 10/24/2013 12:44 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>> Shouldn't the two
>>
>> tiadc_iio_buffered_hardware_remove(indio_dev);
>> tiadc_channels_remove(indio_dev);
>>
>> in tiadc_remove() be reversed in their call order? The second alter is
>> accessing the buffer which is released by the former one.
>>
>
> As far as I can see tiadc_channels_remove() only does a
> kfree(indio_dev->channels), so it does not access the buffer at all.
I'm sorry I meant
iio_kfifo_free(indio_dev->buffer);
iio_buffer_unregister(indio_dev);
in tiadc_iio_buffered_hardware_remove()
>> btw: is all this ref counting really required? I mean I would assume
>> allocate buffer in one place (at probe time) release it remove time
>> should be enough.
>
> It is required. Userspace may still be reading from the buffer when the
> driver frees it. So we need proper refcounting here.
Ach okay then.
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
