On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:55:02PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> On 28/11/2018 6:25 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 01:44:37PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
[...]
> >> + bool ret = false;
> >> + struct of_phandle_args sensor_specs;
> >> + struct device_node *np, *sensor_np;
> >> +
> >> + np = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "thermal-zones");
> >> + if (!np)
> >> + return ret;
> >> +
> >> + sensor_np = of_get_next_child(np, NULL);
> >> + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, sensor_np) {
> >
> > Aren't we leaking np here? I think we need of_node_put() after
> > of_get_next_child() to make sure the reference to the "thermal-zones"
> > node is properly released.
>
> No, we will not leak np here. Because the
> for_each_available_child_of_node will call
> of_get_next_available_child(), which will call of_node_put(prev) to
> decrease refcount of the prev node. So we just need to of_node_put the
> last node after break from this for block.
Okay, looks like I misinterpreted what you were doing there. I thought
that for_each_available_child_of_node() took the child as first argument
and the parent as second and therefore np would be overwritten by the
first assignment in the macro.
But looking at this more closely I think there's something else wrong
here. for_each_available_child_of_node() is defined as:
for_each_available_child_of_node(parent, child)
so in the above, np will be the parent and sensor_np the child. Why do
you have to do
sensor_np = of_get_next_child(np, NULL);
? That's already done as part of the loop in the macro, right? So does
that not mean we get two references and we leak the first one? Can the
above not simply been dropped?
Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
