Re: [PATCH 1/2] gadget: Introduce the usb charger framework

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1511 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 09:39:05AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 03:03:48PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:

> > +static void usb_charger_release(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	struct usb_charger *uchger = dev_get_drvdata(dev);

> > +	if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&uchger->count)) {
> > +		dev_err(dev, "The usb charger is still in use\n");

> Why is the "count" different from the reference count?  You shouldn't be
> in this function if the reference count is not 0, so tie your "user"
> count to this one.  Having two different reference counts is a nightmare
> and almost impossible to get right.  And a huge red flag that the design
> is incorrect.

> > +		return;

> You can't "fail" a release call, so you just leaked memory all over the
> floor here :(

Indeed.  I did discuss this with Baolin off list but I'd missed the
dynamic allocation of devices for some reason.

> > +	mutex_lock(&usb_charger_list_lock);
> > +	list_for_each_entry(tmp, &usb_charger_list, entry) {
> > +		if (!(strcmp(tmp->name, uchger->name))) {
> > +			mutex_unlock(&usb_charger_list_lock);
> > +			ret = -EEXIST;
> > +			goto out;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	list_add_tail(&uchger->entry, &usb_charger_list);

> Why do you need a separate list?  This subsystem's bus structure should
> own that list of devices, no need for a separate one (again, a huge red
> flag that the design is not correct.)

Right, if we dynamically allocate a device per charger then the lifetime
issues should go away and we get a list for free.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]