Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755585AbZKBPwr (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:52:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755336AbZKBPwq (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:52:46 -0500 Received: from aeryn.fluff.org.uk ([87.194.8.8]:56454 "EHLO kira.home.fluff.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755317AbZKBPwq (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:52:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:52:31 +0000 From: Ben Dooks To: Ben Dooks Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Antonio Ospite , openezx-devel@lists.openezx.org, Samuel Ortiz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Mike Rapoport , Daniel Ribeiro Subject: Re: Using statically allocated memory for platform_data. Message-ID: <20091102155231.GC20341@fluff.org.uk> References: <20091102112316.16163f6a.ospite@studenti.unina.it> <20091102150011.GB20341@fluff.org.uk> <20091102150525.GB5785@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20091102152500.GD23772@trinity.fluff.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091102152500.GD23772@trinity.fluff.org> X-Disclaimer: These are my own opinions, so there! User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2148 Lines: 46 On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 03:25:00PM +0000, Ben Dooks wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 03:05:25PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 03:00:11PM +0000, Ben Dooks wrote: > > > This looks like something is freeing stuff that it did not allocate in > > > the first place, which is IMHO bad. The call platform_device_alloc() > > > is setting platform_device_release() as the default release function > > > but platform_device_release() releases more than platform_device_alloc() > > > actually created. > > > > > > My view is that platform_device_alloc()'s default release shouldn't > > > be freeing the platform data, and that using platform_device_add_data() > > > or platform_device_add_resources() should change either the behvaiour > > > of platform_device_release() or it should change the pointer to a new > > > release function. > > > > That doesn't work - how do those other functions (adding) know what data > > has also been added by other functions? That can't work reliably. > > You could wrapper platform device, and each of the add functions could > update it, but that would assume the platform device had been allocated > with platform_device_alloc(). Having had a look, all the current users of platform_device_add_data() are from a platform_alloc_device() created device. The number of calls to platform_device_add_resources() are many, but the ones I checked are from platform_alloc_device(). However your point being that these add calls may not be used on a device that has been created from platform_device_alloc() is one I overlooked. Having a state machine that changed the release call from platform_device_release() to say platform_device_release_resources() or platform_device_release_all() and then platform_device_release_all() may be another way to do it. -- Ben (ben@fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/) 'a smiley only costs 4 bytes' -- 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/