lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] led: simplify led_trigger_register_simple
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 02:45:59PM +0000, ext Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 16:14 +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > In answer to your question about kfree, I agree it needs to be called
> > > upon error. The callers should just be calling
> > > led_trigger_unregister_simple() in their failure paths though which
> > > should take care of all problems? I know we used to register the simple
> > > triggers late in paths so no error handling was needed to keep the code
> > > simple and minimise the LED triggers impact on those systems.
> > Well, led_trigger_register_simple() doesn't return anything. Imagine
> > led_trigger_register_simple() fails, but the driver author decides
> > it's not a failure if, let's say, a led doesn't turn on when we insert
> > a mmc card to the slot since it doesn't change functionality.
> >
> > Now, imagine the user notes the led is not turning on and decides to
> > unload and reload the module to try again. Once again the led doesn't go
> > on. If the user keeps trying, it's quite a dangerous memory leak, right
> > ?
>
> So we have the module loading and one of two things happens:
>
> led_trigger_register_simple() succeeds
> led_trigger_register_simple() fails (probably from kmalloc failure)
>
> The module doesn't know or care which happened. When the module unloads
> it calls led_trigger_unregister_simple() which will free the memory in
> the success case and do nothing in the case where it had failed.
>
> So there is no memory leak?

Hmmm, you are right. Didin't think about the exit path. But freeing in
led_triger_register_simple() if led_trigger_register() fails, also
doesn't seem wrong.

--
balbi


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-20 16:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans