From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] drm/meson: fix possible object reference leak
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:05:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07090eca-640f-830c-7e55-22a486cd0002@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1554307455-40361-3-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
> @@ -720,13 +720,10 @@ static bool meson_hdmi_connector_is_available(struct device *dev)
>
> /* If the endpoint node exists, consider it enabled */
> remote = of_graph_get_remote_port(ep);
> - if (remote) {
> - of_node_put(ep);
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> of_node_put(ep);
> of_node_put(remote);
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/meson/meson_dw_hdmi.c?id=61de49cb596710b918f7a80839f0b6de2017bc32#n712
Can the order of these put calls matter (because of processor caches)?
> + if (remote)
> + return true;
>
> return false;
Would the use of a ternary operator be more succinct here?
+ return remote ? true : false;
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] drm/meson: fix possible object reference leak
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 20:05:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07090eca-640f-830c-7e55-22a486cd0002@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1554307455-40361-3-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
> @@ -720,13 +720,10 @@ static bool meson_hdmi_connector_is_available(struct device *dev)
>
> /* If the endpoint node exists, consider it enabled */
> remote = of_graph_get_remote_port(ep);
> - if (remote) {
> - of_node_put(ep);
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> of_node_put(ep);
> of_node_put(remote);
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/meson/meson_dw_hdmi.c?id=61de49cb596710b918f7a80839f0b6de2017bc32#n712
Can the order of these put calls matter (because of processor caches)?
> + if (remote)
> + return true;
>
> return false;
Would the use of a ternary operator be more succinct here?
+ return remote ? true : false;
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] drm/meson: fix possible object reference leak
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:05:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07090eca-640f-830c-7e55-22a486cd0002@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1554307455-40361-3-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
> @@ -720,13 +720,10 @@ static bool meson_hdmi_connector_is_available(struct device *dev)
>
> /* If the endpoint node exists, consider it enabled */
> remote = of_graph_get_remote_port(ep);
> - if (remote) {
> - of_node_put(ep);
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> of_node_put(ep);
> of_node_put(remote);
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/meson/meson_dw_hdmi.c?id=61de49cb596710b918f7a80839f0b6de2017bc32#n712
Can the order of these put calls matter (because of processor caches)?
> + if (remote)
> + return true;
>
> return false;
Would the use of a ternary operator be more succinct here?
+ return remote ? true : false;
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] drm/meson: fix possible object reference leak
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:05:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07090eca-640f-830c-7e55-22a486cd0002@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1554307455-40361-3-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
> @@ -720,13 +720,10 @@ static bool meson_hdmi_connector_is_available(struct device *dev)
>
> /* If the endpoint node exists, consider it enabled */
> remote = of_graph_get_remote_port(ep);
> - if (remote) {
> - of_node_put(ep);
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> of_node_put(ep);
> of_node_put(remote);
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/meson/meson_dw_hdmi.c?id=61de49cb596710b918f7a80839f0b6de2017bc32#n712
Can the order of these put calls matter (because of processor caches)?
> + if (remote)
> + return true;
>
> return false;
Would the use of a ternary operator be more succinct here?
+ return remote ? true : false;
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] drm/meson: fix possible object reference leak
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:05:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07090eca-640f-830c-7e55-22a486cd0002@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1554307455-40361-3-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
> @@ -720,13 +720,10 @@ static bool meson_hdmi_connector_is_available(struct device *dev)
>
> /* If the endpoint node exists, consider it enabled */
> remote = of_graph_get_remote_port(ep);
> - if (remote) {
> - of_node_put(ep);
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> of_node_put(ep);
> of_node_put(remote);
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/meson/meson_dw_hdmi.c?id=61de49cb596710b918f7a80839f0b6de2017bc32#n712
Can the order of these put calls matter (because of processor caches)?
> + if (remote)
> + return true;
>
> return false;
Would the use of a ternary operator be more succinct here?
+ return remote ? true : false;
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
linux-amlogic mailing list
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-04 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-03 16:04 [PATCH 0/7] fix possible object reference leaks in drivers/gpu Wen Yang
2019-04-03 16:04 ` [PATCH 1/7] drm/mediatek: fix possible object reference leak Wen Yang
2019-04-03 16:04 ` Wen Yang
2019-04-09 5:15 ` CK Hu
2019-04-09 5:15 ` CK Hu
2019-04-09 5:15 ` CK Hu
2019-04-03 16:04 ` [PATCH 2/7] drm/meson: " Wen Yang
2019-04-03 16:04 ` Wen Yang
2019-04-03 16:04 ` Wen Yang
2019-04-03 16:04 ` Wen Yang
2019-04-04 20:05 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2019-04-04 20:05 ` Markus Elfring
2019-04-04 20:05 ` Markus Elfring
2019-04-04 20:05 ` Markus Elfring
2019-04-04 20:05 ` Markus Elfring
2019-04-03 16:04 ` [PATCH 3/7] drm/msm: a5xx: " Wen Yang
2019-04-10 16:21 ` Jordan Crouse
2019-04-10 16:21 ` Jordan Crouse
2019-04-03 16:04 ` [PATCH 4/7] drm/omap: " Wen Yang
2019-04-04 13:25 ` Laurent Pinchart
2019-04-08 1:24 ` wen.yang99
2019-04-04 20:42 ` Markus Elfring
2019-04-04 20:42 ` Markus Elfring
2019-04-03 16:04 ` [PATCH 5/7] drm/pl111: " Wen Yang
2019-04-03 16:04 ` Wen Yang
2019-04-04 19:59 ` Eric Anholt
2019-04-04 19:59 ` Eric Anholt
2019-04-04 21:05 ` Markus Elfring
2019-04-04 21:05 ` Markus Elfring
2019-04-03 16:04 ` [PATCH 6/7] drm: rcar-du: " Wen Yang
2019-04-04 13:35 ` Laurent Pinchart
2019-04-08 1:10 ` 答复: " wen.yang99
2019-04-03 16:04 ` [PATCH 7/7] drm/tegra: " Wen Yang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=07090eca-640f-830c-7e55-22a486cd0002@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
--cc=linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=narmstrong@baylibre.com \
--cc=wang.yi59@zte.com.cn \
--cc=wen.yang99@zte.com.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.