Hi Krzysztof, Thank you for the explanation and sorry for not realizing the correct deallocation function. I found in another email thread that the NULL initialization following the __free() was mainly for readability but not safety. Sorry for the confusion. We are working on a static analysis tool and wanted to report potential bugs. We directly sent a patch trying to reduce developer’s burden but didn’t not realize the correct use of Reported-by tag. We will be more careful in the future. Best, Zichen On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 3:13 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 01/10/2024 22:09, Zichen Xie wrote: > > I don't think device_node() is a correct freeing function here: > > 'struct device_node *np __free(device_node);' > > even if I'm not an expert in Kernel. > > > > And I think it could be more convincing to explain 'why', rather than > > simply highlighting the errors repeatedly. > > If you ever bothered to compile your code, you would see why. > > None of your arguments make any sense. Your code tries to perform > initialization, just before assignment so it is completely unnecessary. > I don't understand why you could not spot that obvious part of the code, > because this is just C. For obvious reasons I won't be spending my time > to explain why this: > > some_ptr *ptr = NULL; > ptr = foo; > if () ... > return ...; > > is wrong. You just did not read the code, not built it. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
