From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161375AbbBDRIl (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 12:08:41 -0500 Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]:60623 "EHLO mail-ob0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161289AbbBDRIh (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 12:08:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1422029405-9353-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 18:08:37 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: w4Cvxdx90V-7oI96PXSkQ_n6ets Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] of/unittest: Add reference count tests From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Rob Herring Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rob, On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven > wrote: >> This patch series adds tests to detect reference count imbalances. >> The tests use a fixed list of paths to devices nodes (required device >> nodes in a minimal DTS, and device nodes present in unittest-data). >> I considered scanning for all present device node instead, but these >> are more likely to change while running the test. >> >> These tests are executed only if CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC=y. >> >> Patches are against devicetree/next, with "[PATCH] of: Add missing >> of_node_put() in of_find_node_by_path()" (or the alternative proposed >> by Grant) applied. >> >> Note that it shows 44 failures, which I haven't investigated yet: > > Do you plan to? Maybe. It doesn't have such a high priority in my task list... > While this could find problems in the unittests or the core OF code, > the vast majority of the problems are likely in the users and this > doesn't help with those. This whole issue of ref counts has been > discussed some and probably needs to be redesigned or instrumented in > a way that users can validate. But then it is pretty low priority > given that ref counts only matter on pseries. I agree most issues are in the users. However, I did find one issue in the core code. Note that the reference counts may become more important in the future, as OF_OVERLAY selects OF_DYNAMIC. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] of/unittest: Add reference count tests Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 18:08:37 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1422029405-9353-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Rob, On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven > wrote: >> This patch series adds tests to detect reference count imbalances. >> The tests use a fixed list of paths to devices nodes (required device >> nodes in a minimal DTS, and device nodes present in unittest-data). >> I considered scanning for all present device node instead, but these >> are more likely to change while running the test. >> >> These tests are executed only if CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC=y. >> >> Patches are against devicetree/next, with "[PATCH] of: Add missing >> of_node_put() in of_find_node_by_path()" (or the alternative proposed >> by Grant) applied. >> >> Note that it shows 44 failures, which I haven't investigated yet: > > Do you plan to? Maybe. It doesn't have such a high priority in my task list... > While this could find problems in the unittests or the core OF code, > the vast majority of the problems are likely in the users and this > doesn't help with those. This whole issue of ref counts has been > discussed some and probably needs to be redesigned or instrumented in > a way that users can validate. But then it is pretty low priority > given that ref counts only matter on pseries. I agree most issues are in the users. However, I did find one issue in the core code. Note that the reference counts may become more important in the future, as OF_OVERLAY selects OF_DYNAMIC. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html