From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg0-x242.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c05::242]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.85_2 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1c9GdY-0001XV-Ko for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:21:49 +0000 Received: by mail-pg0-x242.google.com with SMTP id x23so2855310pgx.3 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:21:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:21:24 -0800 From: Brian Norris To: Luis Henriques Cc: David Woodhouse , Boris Brezillon , Marek Vasut , Richard Weinberger , Cyrille Pitchen , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: maps: add missing iounmap() in error path Message-ID: <20161122192124.GF77253@google.com> References: <20161116225016.29958-1-henrix@camandro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161116225016.29958-1-henrix@camandro.org> List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:50:16PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: > This patch was triggered by the following Coccinelle error: > > ./drivers/mtd/maps/sc520cdp.c:246:3-9: \ > ERROR: missing iounmap; ioremap on line 242 \ > and execution via conditional on line 244 > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques > --- > drivers/mtd/maps/sc520cdp.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/maps/sc520cdp.c b/drivers/mtd/maps/sc520cdp.c > index 093edd51bdc7..7a27ed345d0d 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/maps/sc520cdp.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/maps/sc520cdp.c > @@ -243,6 +243,10 @@ static int __init init_sc520cdp(void) > > if (!sc520cdp_map[i].virt) { > printk("Failed to ioremap_nocache\n"); > + if (i) { > + while (--i) Umm, so you never unmap from sc520cdp_map[0].virt? How about: while (--i >= 0) ? You can also skip the 'if (i)' part in that case. Or maybe make it a for loop, to be even clearer. > + iounmap(sc520cdp_map[i].virt); This may often be a double-iounmap. If you take a look later in the loop, many instances of the loop may not find a device, and so they'll unmap this memory and move on. You're just doing it a second time for them. > + } > return -EIO; > } > Please put some more care into your patch, since I very much expect that you did not test it. Brian