From: Nicolas Palix <npalix@diku.dk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] powerpc/powermac: Add missing of_node_put
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:09:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812071509.09091.npalix@diku.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081207164333.78b69d16.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
On Sunday 07 December 2008 06:43:33 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:31:00 +1100 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really in two minds about applying any of the of_node_put patches
> > that only affect powermacs. The reference counts only matter on
> > platforms where we update the OF device tree at runtime, which is
> > currently only IBM pSeries machines. Since we don't have any hotplug
> > on powermacs, and never will have, the OF device tree is completely
> > static and we don't actually need refcounts on the nodes at all, so
> > who cares if they're a bit higher than they might be?
> >
> > In particular, the VIA whose node we're looking for here is built-in
> > on the motherboard, and there can never be more than one, and it can
> > never be removed.
>
> I my mind it is about consistent use of the API and good examples for
> people to copy. Also, in about a year you will be presented with the
> same set of patches when a new pair of eyes looks at the same code and
> notices the discrepancy ...
>
Hi Andrew,
Indeed, there is an updated version of this patch in my second mail
which fixes this issue.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/3/88
Moreover, there is still a reference count unbalanced with your patch in the
case where the function returns 1.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Palix
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nicolas Palix <npalix@diku.dk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] powerpc/powermac: Add missing of_node_put
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:09:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812071509.09091.npalix@diku.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081207164333.78b69d16.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
On Sunday 07 December 2008 06:43:33 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:31:00 +1100 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really in two minds about applying any of the of_node_put patches
> > that only affect powermacs. The reference counts only matter on
> > platforms where we update the OF device tree at runtime, which is
> > currently only IBM pSeries machines. Since we don't have any hotplug
> > on powermacs, and never will have, the OF device tree is completely
> > static and we don't actually need refcounts on the nodes at all, so
> > who cares if they're a bit higher than they might be?
> >
> > In particular, the VIA whose node we're looking for here is built-in
> > on the motherboard, and there can never be more than one, and it can
> > never be removed.
>
> I my mind it is about consistent use of the API and good examples for
> people to copy. Also, in about a year you will be presented with the
> same set of patches when a new pair of eyes looks at the same code and
> notices the discrepancy ...
>
Hi Andrew,
Indeed, there is an updated version of this patch in my second mail
which fixes this issue.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/3/88
Moreover, there is still a reference count unbalanced with your patch in the
case where the function returns 1.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Palix
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nicolas Palix <npalix@diku.dk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] powerpc/powermac: Add missing of_node_put
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:09:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812071509.09091.npalix@diku.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081207164333.78b69d16.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
On Sunday 07 December 2008 06:43:33 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:31:00 +1100 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really in two minds about applying any of the of_node_put patches
> > that only affect powermacs. The reference counts only matter on
> > platforms where we update the OF device tree at runtime, which is
> > currently only IBM pSeries machines. Since we don't have any hotplug
> > on powermacs, and never will have, the OF device tree is completely
> > static and we don't actually need refcounts on the nodes at all, so
> > who cares if they're a bit higher than they might be?
> >
> > In particular, the VIA whose node we're looking for here is built-in
> > on the motherboard, and there can never be more than one, and it can
> > never be removed.
>
> I my mind it is about consistent use of the API and good examples for
> people to copy. Also, in about a year you will be presented with the
> same set of patches when a new pair of eyes looks at the same code and
> notices the discrepancy ...
>
Hi Andrew,
Indeed, there is an updated version of this patch in my second mail
which fixes this issue.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/3/88
Moreover, there is still a reference count unbalanced with your patch in the
case where the function returns 1.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Palix
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-07 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-02 13:45 [PATCH linux-next] powerpc/powermac: Add missing of_node_put Nicolas Palix
2008-12-02 13:45 ` Nicolas Palix
2008-12-02 13:45 ` Nicolas Palix
2008-12-02 23:19 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-02 23:19 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-02 23:19 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-02 23:25 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-02 23:25 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-02 23:25 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-03 10:25 ` [PATCH] " Nicolas Palix
2008-12-03 10:25 ` Nicolas Palix
2008-12-03 10:25 ` Nicolas Palix
2008-12-07 0:34 ` [PATCH linux-next] " Andrew Morton
2008-12-07 0:34 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-07 0:34 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-07 2:31 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-12-07 2:31 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-12-07 2:31 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-12-07 5:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-07 5:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-07 5:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-07 14:09 ` Nicolas Palix [this message]
2008-12-07 14:09 ` Nicolas Palix
2008-12-07 14:09 ` Nicolas Palix
2008-12-07 23:58 ` Michael Ellerman
2008-12-07 23:58 ` Michael Ellerman
2008-12-07 23:58 ` Michael Ellerman
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=200812071509.09091.npalix@diku.dk \
--to=npalix@diku.dk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=julia@diku.dk \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/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.