Hi Julia, Am Mittwoch, 18. November 2015, 21:38:02 schrieb Julia Lawall: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Heiko Stübner wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 18. November 2015, 11:31:29 schrieb Brian Norris: > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 08:27:07PM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote: > > > > Am Montag, 16. November 2015, 12:33:17 schrieb Julia Lawall: > > > > hmm, while I agree that the rockchip phy has an issue in the node > > > > lifecycle, I'm not sure that patch fixes it fully. > > > > > > > > It currently iterates over each phy, but would only of_node_put the > > > > phy it > > > > handled last. So if an error happens on the 3rd phy, the first 2 are > > > > already instantiated and would also get removed when the overall probe > > > > fails, but their of_node would never be "put". > > > > > > Note the behavior of of_get_next_child() (and > > > of_get_next_available_child()); it "Decrements the refcount of prev." So > > > the loop only keeps a reference for (at most) one node at a time. > > > > > > I believe Julia's patch is correct. It's possible the commit description > > > could have made this aspect clearer though, since I was confused about > > > this at first as well. > > > > oh, I hadn't realized that :-) . > > > > Although in this case, what happens with the last child, if only "prev"s > > get decremented? When the loop finished I'd think that the last one would > > keep it's reference, as the patch stand right - or I'm just blind. > > The loop finishes when the child is NULL. So there is nothing to put in > that case. The process of getting from the last child to the NULL does > the of_node_put. sorry for being a bit slow today ... I should probably sleep more :-) Then the patch looks fine ... I'll add my Tag on the top, to not burry it down here. Heiko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
