From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com ([2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.85_2 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1c9ZOz-0004fo-5d for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:24:02 +0000 From: Luis Henriques To: Brian Norris 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 References: <20161116225016.29958-1-henrix@camandro.org> <20161122192124.GF77253@google.com> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:22:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20161122192124.GF77253@google.com> (Brian Norris's message of "Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:21:24 -0800") Message-ID: <87a8cq9q77.fsf@camandro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Brian Norris writes: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:50:16PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: >> This patch was triggered by the following Coccinelle error: >>=20 >> ./drivers/mtd/maps/sc520cdp.c:246:3-9: \ >> ERROR: missing iounmap; ioremap on line 242 \ >> and execution via conditional on line 244 >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques >> --- >> drivers/mtd/maps/sc520cdp.c | 4 ++++ >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >>=20 >> 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) >>=20=20 >> 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 >=3D 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; >> } >>=20=20 > > Please put some more care into your patch, since I very much expect that > you did not test it. > > Brian Thank you very much for your review. All very good points indeed! I'll try to send v2 soon to cover all the issues you've found. Cheers, --=20 Lu=C3=ADs