From: "Liang He" <windhl@126.com>
To: "Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: broonie@kernel.org, ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com,
michal.simek@xilinx.com, abhyuday.godhasara@xilinx.com,
simont@opensource.cirrus.com, ronak.jain@xilinx.com,
peng.fan@nxp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH] firmware: Hold a reference for of_find_compatible_node()
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 22:51:38 +0800 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <578840ee.438c.181a5a58c00.Coremail.windhl@126.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yrm6JztPuqYmKlKF@kroah.com>
At 2022-06-27 22:09:43, "Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:26:25AM +0800, Liang He wrote:
>> In of_register_trusted_foundations(), we need to hold the reference
>> returned by of_find_compatible_node() and then use it to call
>> of_node_put() for refcount balance.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Liang He <windhl@126.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/firmware/trusted_foundations.h | 8 ++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/firmware/trusted_foundations.h b/include/linux/firmware/trusted_foundations.h
>> index be5984bda592..399471c2f1c7 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/firmware/trusted_foundations.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/firmware/trusted_foundations.h
>> @@ -71,12 +71,16 @@ static inline void register_trusted_foundations(
>>
>> static inline void of_register_trusted_foundations(void)
>> {
>> + struct device_node *np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "tlm,trusted-foundations");
>> +
>> + of_node_put(np);
>> + if (!np)
>
>While this is technically correct, you are now checking to see if this
>points to a memory location that you no longer know what it really
>belongs to. C will let you do this, but it might be nicer to fix it up
>properly so it doesn't look like this.
>
>thanks,
>
>greg k-h
Hi,Greg KH,
Thanks very much for your effort to review my patch.
In fact, I have reported a commit for this kind of 'check-after-put' coding style:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220617112636.4041671-1-windhl@126.com/
But I have been told to keep such style and I think the explanation is also reasonable.
So when I make this patch, I am indeed confused what I should write.
Finally, I think it is better to be consistent with current coding style so
I chose this 'check-after-put' style.
But if you think it is better to use a normal order, i.e., check-then-put,
I am, of cause, very happy to send a new patch for this bug and I will
also keep to use this coding style in future.
Thanks again.
Liang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-27 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-21 3:26 Liang He
2022-06-27 14:09 ` Greg KH
2022-06-27 14:51 ` Liang He [this message]
2022-06-27 15:03 ` Greg KH
2022-06-27 15:14 ` Liang He
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=578840ee.438c.181a5a58c00.Coremail.windhl@126.com \
--to=windhl@126.com \
--cc=abhyuday.godhasara@xilinx.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.simek@xilinx.com \
--cc=peng.fan@nxp.com \
--cc=ronak.jain@xilinx.com \
--cc=simont@opensource.cirrus.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®