From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: ppc_cbe: fix possible object reference leak Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:50:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1554082674-2049-8-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323329-2019212169-1554202224=:3297" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Markus Elfring Cc: Wen Yang , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Yi Wang List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --8323329-2019212169-1554202224=:3297 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > > The call to of_get_cpu_node returns a node pointer with refcount > > incremented thus it must be explicitly decremented after the last > > usage. > > I would prefer a wording like the following. > > A reference counter was incremented for a CPU node by a call of > the function “of_get_cpu_node”. > Thus decrement it after the last usage. The original log message seems perfectly clear. > > > > Detected by coccinelle with the following warnings: > > I wonder about the shown duplicate notification. > Can a single message be sufficient for the code search result > in this source file? Since you have removed the context, I have no idea what you are talking about. julia --8323329-2019212169-1554202224=:3297--