Hi Dan,
On 31/10/23 8:21 pm, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 05:06:47AM -0700, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
Add request and release firmware to catch bugs where there is an
imbalance between release and request firmware.
request_firmware(const struct firmware **firmware_p, const char *name,
struct device *device)
release frees(firmware) so we should pass '0' to the table entry in the
ALLOC.
Signed-off-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
check_unwind.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/check_unwind.c b/check_unwind.c
index 59678a94..0dc8f752 100644
--- a/check_unwind.c
+++ b/check_unwind.c
@@ -95,6 +95,9 @@ static struct ref_func_info func_table[] = {
{ "ieee80211_alloc_hw", ALLOC, -1, "$", &valid_ptr_min_sval, &valid_ptr_max_sval },
{ "ieee80211_free_hw", RELEASE, 0, "$" },
+
+ { "request_firmware", ALLOC, 0, "$", &valid_ptr_min_sval, &valid_ptr_max_sval },
Doesn't request_firmware() return zero on success? &int_zero?
Right, I missed that sorry.
I will fix it in V2.
This also answers why my test complained like this incorrectly, but I
thought that was due to db:
drivers/usb/typec/tipd/core.c:1009 tps25750_start_patch_burst_mode()
warn: '&fw' from request_firmware() not released on lines: 960.
drivers/usb/typec/tipd/core.c:1009 tps25750_start_patch_burst_mode()
warn: '&fw' from request_firmware() not released on lines: 971,976,980,1009.
But when I changed it to &int_zero, it works well and shows this warning
alone:
drivers/usb/typec/tipd/core.c:1009 tps25750_start_patch_burst_mode()
warn: '&fw' from request_firmware() not released on lines: 971,976,980,1009.
Thanks i will send a V2.
Regards,
Harshit
regards,
dan carpenter
