lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] of: refcount leak when phandle_cache entry replaced
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:17 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/11/19 2:18 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 02:14:53 -0600, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
> >> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> >>
> >> of_find_node_by_phandle() does not do an of_node_put() of the existing
> >> node in a phandle cache entry when that node is replaced by a new node.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
> >> Fixes: b8a9ac1a5b99 ("of: of_node_get()/of_node_put() nodes held in phandle cache")
> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Checkpatch will warn about a line over 80 characters. Let me know
> >> if that bothers you.
> >>
> >> drivers/of/base.c | 2 ++
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >
> > Applied, thanks.
> >
> > Rob
> >
>
> If the rework patch of the cache that you posted shortly after accepting
> my patch, then my patch becomes not needed and is just extra noise in the
> history. Once your patch finishes review (I am assuming it probably
> will), then my patch should be reverted.

The question is what to backport: nothing, this patch or mine? My
thought was to apply this mainly to backport. If you're fine with
nothing or mine, then we can drop it. I'm a bit nervous marking mine
for stable.

Rob

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-12 15:01    [W:0.039 / U:0.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site