On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:36:47 +0100
Janusz Krzysztofik <jkrzyszt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 3. In omap_mcbsp_free(), marking the port as free before deallocating the
> cache, could result in memory leak as well.
>
> I hope all are addressed correctly. Since releasing the port with
>
> mcbsp->free = 1;
>
> after kzalloc() failure should be atomic, I have assumed this doesn't require
> locking.
>
Good catch. One comment below.
> @@ -471,6 +491,9 @@ void omap_mcbsp_free(unsigned int id)
> free_irq(mcbsp->tx_irq, (void *)mcbsp);
> }
>
> + kfree(mcbsp->reg_cache);
> + mcbsp->reg_cache = NULL;
> +
> spin_lock(&mcbsp->lock);
> if (mcbsp->free) {
> dev_err(mcbsp->dev, "McBSP%d was not reserved\n",
This is fine in current form but to play safe, lets do the kfree
inside the spin_lock section where the mcbsp->free is set. Then there
is no risk if some future code would use the mcbsp->free as a guard for
cache etc. access.
--
Jarkko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
