On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 12:14:10AM +0900, Hector Martin wrote:
On 04/01/2023 00.06, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
Hi Hector,
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 10:48:52PM +0900, Hector Martin wrote:
@@ -822,11 +822,8 @@ struct nvmem_device *nvmem_register(const struct nvmem_config *config) break; }
- if (rval) {
ida_free(&nvmem_ida, nvmem->id);kfree(nvmem);return ERR_PTR(rval);- }
- if (rval)
goto err_gpiod_put;Why was gpiod changes added to this patch, that should be a separate patch/discussion, as this is not relevant to the issue that you are reporting.
Because freeing the device also does a gpiod_put in the destructor, so doing this is correct in every other instance below and maintains existing behavior, and it just so happens that this instance converges into the same codepath so it is correct to merge it, and it just so happens that the gpiod put was missing in this path to begin with so this becomes a drive-by bugfix.
If you don't like it I can remove it (i.e. reintroduce the bug for no good reason) and you can submit this fix yourself, because I have no incentive to waste time submitting a separate patch to fix a GPIO leak in an error path corner case in a subsystem I don't own and I have much bigger things to spend my (increasingly lower and lower) willingness to fight for upstream submissions than this.
Seriously, what is wrong with y'all kernel people. No other open source project wastes contributors' time with stupid nitpicks like this. I found a bug, I fixed it, I then fixed the issues you pointed out, and I don't have the time nor energy to fight over this kind of nonsense next. Do you want bugs fixed or not?
This is not nonsense. We have always had a policy of one fix/change per patch, and in this case it makes complete and utter sense. Of course, the interpretation of "one change" is a matter of opinion.
The change here is the race condition fix. That change involves adding an error cleanup path that involves a gpio_put(). Therefore it seems logical to actually use it in that one extra case that should've used it anyway, a few lines above.
The two are entirely unrelated. as I've already explained. The call to device_register() happens _after_ the check for rval from the dev_set_name() that you are changing. Moving device_register() doesn't make the lack of gpiod_put() any better or worse than it was before.
That said, I'm now thinking that my patch is actually wrong, but for a different reason unrelated to the gpiod issue. :(