Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <2d937f96-0a3e-9177-ea6f-6ebae113386b@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 25 Jun 2022 21:49:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rpmsg: fix possible refcount leak in
 rpmsg_register_device_override()
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc:     Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@gmail.com>, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220624024120.11576-1-hbh25y@gmail.com>
 <20220624173621.GC1736477@p14s>
 <47db0cd8-c940-6e74-f8dc-8e3931e13d80@linaro.org>
 <CANLsYkzT5ZROReZNQ_eYL-r49ijaZYZ5TzdMpqy1RK0_hvW3_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <0bbee169-6fdc-b50e-87f7-1551dac821e2@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <0bbee169-6fdc-b50e-87f7-1551dac821e2@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 25/06/2022 21:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 24/06/2022 20:43, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 11:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/06/2022 19:36, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:41:20AM +0800, Hangyu Hua wrote:
>>>>> rpmsg_register_device_override need to call put_device to free vch when
>>>>> driver_set_override fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix this by adding a put_device() to the error path.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: bb17d110cbf2 ("rpmsg: Fix calling device_lock() on non-initialized device")
>>>>
>>>> This is funny... Neither Bjorn nor I have reviewed this patch...
>>>
>>> It was a fix for commit in Greg's tree and Greg's pick it up after a
>>> week or something. I am not sure if that's actually funny that Greg has
>>> to pick it up without review :(
>>>
>>
>> The patch was sent out on April 19th and committed 3 days later on
>> April 22nd.  Is 3 days the new patch review time standard?
> 
> Neither 19th, nor 22nd are correct. The patch which you set you never
> reviewed, so commit bb17d110cbf2 was sent on 29th of April:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220429195946.1061725-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/
> 
> And committed on 6 of May, which gives some time for review. Where did
> you see the other dates?


Maybe you refer to much earlier commit, not mentioned here which was on
the list since February and committed indeed around April 22, so it gave
around 2 months of time for review. In the meantime the patch was
changing although since v6 (beginning of April [1]) it was almost
untouched, except one string change.

Therefore this original set, not one being mentioned here bb17d110cbf2,
was quite available. And you were Cc-ed since beginning - the version 2
this year (February, [2]). Two months is usually quite enough for
review, especially for not so big diff.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220403183758.192236-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/

[2]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220223191310.347669-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com/


Best regards,
Krzysztof