| Message ID | VI1PR0701MB68298749C8133A7D69CFDBBFC9F09@VI1PR0701MB6829.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | of: overlay: fix warning being reported as error in add_changeset_property | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | warning | total: 1 errors, 2 warnings, 8 lines checked |
| robh/patch-applied | fail | build log |
On 12/30/22 02:40, Ankit 16. Kumar (Nokia) wrote: > > The print causes false reporting of the issue which actually is a warning How did you select the commit in this Fixes tag? > Fixes: 2fe0e8769df9 ("of: overlay: check prevents multiple fragments touching same property") > > Signed-off-by: Ankit Kumar <ankit.16.kumar@nokia.com> > --- > drivers/of/overlay.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c index ed4e6c144a68..0da39b8461e7 100644 > --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c > +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c > @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static int add_changeset_property(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs, > } > > if (!of_node_check_flag(target->np, OF_OVERLAY)) > - pr_err("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, property: %pOF/%s\n", > + pr_warn("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, > +property: %pOF/%s\n", > target->np, new_prop->name); > > if (ret) { > -- > 2.30.1 > NACK. This patch is incorrect. The reported memory leak is a bug, not a warning. I'll write up some information about why the memory leak occurs, then reply to this email with the additional info. -Frank
On 1/2/23 08:35, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 12/30/22 02:40, Ankit 16. Kumar (Nokia) wrote: >> >> The print causes false reporting of the issue which actually is a warning > > How did you select the commit in this Fixes tag? > >> Fixes: 2fe0e8769df9 ("of: overlay: check prevents multiple fragments touching same property") >> >> Signed-off-by: Ankit Kumar <ankit.16.kumar@nokia.com> >> --- >> drivers/of/overlay.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c index ed4e6c144a68..0da39b8461e7 100644 >> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c >> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c >> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static int add_changeset_property(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs, >> } >> >> if (!of_node_check_flag(target->np, OF_OVERLAY)) >> - pr_err("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, property: %pOF/%s\n", >> + pr_warn("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, >> +property: %pOF/%s\n", >> target->np, new_prop->name); >> >> if (ret) { >> -- >> 2.30.1 >> > > NACK. This patch is incorrect. The reported memory leak is a bug, not a warning. > > I'll write up some information about why the memory leak occurs, then reply to this > email with the additional info. The additional information is now available at: https://elinux.org/Device_Tree_Linux#Object_Lifetime > > -Frank
On 1/10/23 00:23, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 1/2/23 08:35, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 12/30/22 02:40, Ankit 16. Kumar (Nokia) wrote: >>> >>> The print causes false reporting of the issue which actually is a warning >> >> How did you select the commit in this Fixes tag? >> >>> Fixes: 2fe0e8769df9 ("of: overlay: check prevents multiple fragments touching same property") >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ankit Kumar <ankit.16.kumar@nokia.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/of/overlay.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c index ed4e6c144a68..0da39b8461e7 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c >>> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c >>> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static int add_changeset_property(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs, >>> } >>> >>> if (!of_node_check_flag(target->np, OF_OVERLAY)) >>> - pr_err("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, property: %pOF/%s\n", >>> + pr_warn("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, >>> +property: %pOF/%s\n", >>> target->np, new_prop->name); >>> >>> if (ret) { >>> -- >>> 2.30.1 >>> >> >> NACK. This patch is incorrect. The reported memory leak is a bug, not a warning. >> >> I'll write up some information about why the memory leak occurs, then reply to this >> email with the additional info. > > The additional information is now available at: > > https://elinux.org/Device_Tree_Linux#Object_Lifetime I have now expanded the information at that link to content that is beyond the original topic. Those interested in devicetree memory object may find the additional info useful. > >> >> -Frank >
diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c index ed4e6c144a68..0da39b8461e7 100644 --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static int add_changeset_property(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs, } if (!of_node_check_flag(target->np, OF_OVERLAY)) - pr_err("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, property: %pOF/%s\n", + pr_warn("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, +property: %pOF/%s\n", target->np, new_prop->name); if (ret) {
The print causes false reporting of the issue which actually is a warning Fixes: 2fe0e8769df9 ("of: overlay: check prevents multiple fragments touching same property") Signed-off-by: Ankit Kumar <ankit.16.kumar@nokia.com> --- drivers/of/overlay.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.30.1