Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753280Ab3JWQQz (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:16:55 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com ([209.85.160.44]:47977 "EHLO mail-pb0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752633Ab3JWQQy (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:16:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:16:44 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Thierry Reding Cc: Rob Herring , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Usage of for_each_child_of_node() Message-ID: <20131023161644.GB20675@roeck-us.net> References: <5259B6F8.3070701@roeck-us.net> <20131023071006.GA7708@ulmo.nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131023071006.GA7708@ulmo.nvidia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2334 Lines: 59 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:10:07AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 10:15:03PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > for_each_child_of_node() and similar functions increase the refcount > > > on each returned node and expect the caller to release the node by > > > calling of_node_put() when done. > > > > > > Looking through the kernel code, it appears this is hardly ever done, > > > if at all. Some code even calls of_node_get() on returned nodes again. > > > > > > I guess this doesn't matter in cases where devicetree is a static entity. > > > However, this is not (or no longer) the case with devicetree overlays, > > > or more generically in cases where devicetree nodes are added and > > > removed dynamically. > > > > > > Fundamental question: Would patches to fix this problem be accepted upstream > > > ? > > > > Certainly. > > > > > Or, of course, stepping a bit back: Am I missing something essential ? > > > > No. I think this is frequently wrong since it typically doesn't matter > > for static entries as you mention. > > Actually, I think it actually happens to be correct most of the time. > The reason is that for_each_child_of_node() internally calls the > of_get_next_child() to iterate over all children. And that function > already calls of_node_put() on the "previous" node. So if all the code > does is to iterate over all nodes to query them, then all should be > fine. > Good, that reduces the scope of the problem significantly. > The only case where you actually need to drop the reference on a node is > if you break out of the loop (so that of_get_next_child() will not be > called). But that's usually the case when you need to perform some > operation on the node, in which case it is the right thing to hold on to > a reference until you're done with the node. > Unfortunately, there are many cases with code such as if (error) return; /* or break; */ or even if (found node) return of_node_get(node); in the loop. Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/