On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 07:21:19AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Tue, 5 Mar, 2019, 4:08 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 3:48 PM Manivannan Sadhasivam > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 01:29:33PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:55 PM Manivannan Sadhasivam > > > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi Wen, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 04:56:42PM +0800, Wen Yang wrote: > > > > > > The call to of_get_next_child returns a node pointer with refcount > > > > > > incremented thus it must be explicitly decremented after the last > > > > > > usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > Detected by coccinelle with the following warnings: > > > > > > ./arch/arm/mach-actions/platsmp.c:112:2-8: ERROR: missing > > of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 103, > > but without a corresponding object release within this function. > > > > > > ./arch/arm/mach-actions/platsmp.c:124:2-8: ERROR: missing > > of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 115, > > but without a corresponding object release within this function. > > > > > > ./arch/arm/mach-actions/platsmp.c:137:3-9: ERROR: missing > > of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 128, > > but without a corresponding object release within this function. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have a floating patch for this: > > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg694544.html > > > > > > > > > > Andreas: Can you please take a second look at the patchset submitted > > by Linus > > > > > Walleij and Russel for simplifying the Actions startup code? > > > > > > > > Andreas wrote a version of simplifying secondary startup in the > > > > same spirit as Russell's patches, and it's merged and all > > > > is fine I think. > > > > > > > > > > Oops. I think I missed that! Can you please point me to that patch? And > > how it > > > got merged? I did the PR for actions stuff this time and haven't > > included any > > > mach-actions patches. > > > > I just did git log arch/arm/mach-actions but I think it came in quite some > > time > > ago, not last merge window: > > > > But you see: > > commit 6c2eb3e76fb84e2eb46d484f71fab469c0d9532c > > "ARM: owl: smp: Drop owl_secondary_boot()" > > commit bad29933fef76fb6ee577f4a0b6d145c1f52f663 > > "ARM: owl: smp: Use __pa_symbol()" > > commit 18cfd9429d8a82c49add8f3ca9d366599bfcac45 > > "ARM: owl: smp: Drop bogus holding pen" > > > > platsmp.c looks just fine these days. Except for what Wei's patch is > > fixing, > > of_node_put(). > > > > Nope. platsmp.c still requires some cleanup like removing the redundant > bootlock and pen_release flag as pointed out by Russel. Andreas just > replied to your cleanup patches but there was no follow up since that. So, > I guess we can just apply Russell's patches and this patch once Andreas is > fine with it (it looks good to me though). No. My patches are in my tree queued for this merge window. They are part of a series that can not be broken up and merged separately because all the per-platform patches need to be merged before the final patch "ARM: smp: remove arch-provided "pen_release"" otherwise the platforms break. I thought that was already explained. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
