From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752898Ab2LSI1m (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:27:42 -0500
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:38485 "EHLO
	mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752247Ab2LSI1f (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:27:35 -0500
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:27:22 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
Cc: Vincent Palatin <vpalatin@chromium.org>, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lothar =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wa=DFmann?= <LW@KARO-electronics.de>
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH] rtc: recycle id when unloading a rtc driver
Message-Id: <20121219002722.87438a08.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <50D1730D.7010108@ahsoftware.de>
References: <1343951605-25722-1-git-send-email-vpalatin@chromium.org>
	<20121218164659.a3d3655a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<50D16EA3.8040803@ahsoftware.de>
	<20121218234543.786a2211.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<50D1730D.7010108@ahsoftware.de>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:55:57 +0100 Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> wrote:

> >
> > I'm all confused.
> >
> > Lothar's patch simply reverts Vincent's patch.  And that appears to be
> > the correct thing to so, as the ida_simple_remove() in
> > rtc_device_release() should be sufficient.
> >
> > But apparently that doesn't work, because Vincent was seeing the RTC
> > ID's increment rather than getting reused.
> >
> > Is it the case that rtc_device_release() is not being called sometimes?
> > If so, under what circumstances?
> 
> Maybe something (sysfs or whatever) still has a reference to it. Vincent 
> should check that.
> 
> But I'm sure the ID will be recycled with that put_device() in 
> unregister because I've got the same warning as Lothar did when 
> (porperly) removing an RTC (with kernel 3.7).

If, as appears to be the case, rtc_device_release() is not being called
then we're also leaking memory.  So yes please, it would be good if
someone who can reproduce the IDs-dont-decrease problem could dive in
and work out why ->release() isn't begin called.