On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:48:42AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:07 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > When SYNC_STATE_ONLY support was added in commit 05ef983e0d65 ("driver
> > core: Add device link support for SYNC_STATE_ONLY flag"),
> > device_link_add() incorrectly skipped adding the new SYNC_STATE_ONLY
> > device link to the supplier's and consumer's "device link" list. So the
> > "device link" is lost forever from driver core if the caller didn't keep
> > track of it (typically isn't expected to).
> >
> > If the same SYNC_STATE_ONLY device link is created again using
> > device_link_add(), instead of returning the pointer to the previously
> > created device link, a new device link is created and returned. This can
> > cause memory leaks in conjunction with fw_devlinks.
> >
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Fixes: 05ef983e0d65 ("driver core: Add device link support for SYNC_STATE_ONLY flag")
> > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Greg/Rafael,
>
> This patch causes a warning for SYNC_STATE_ONLY links because they
> allow consumers to probe before suppliers but the device link
> status/state change code wasn't written with that possibility in mind.
> So I need to fix up that warning or state change code.
What type of warning happens?
> Depending on how urgent you think memory leak fixes are, you can take
> it as is for now and I can send a separate patch to fix the
> warning/state change code later. Or if we can sit on this memory leak
> for a week, I might be able to fix the warning before then.
memory leaks are not ok, but neither is adding runtime warnings. Any
chance we can't just get a fix for both? :)
thanks,
greg k-h
