From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933482AbbHLGnu (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2015 02:43:50 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:33828 "EHLO mail-pd0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716AbbHLGns (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2015 02:43:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:13:09 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Rafael Wysocki , nm@ti.com, sboyd@codeaurora.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, khilman@linaro.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Len Brown , open list , Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/6] PM / OPP: Free resources and properly return error on failure Message-ID: <20150812064309.GL32049@linux> References: <334a9052264630b9157fa9bfc3d4efe945054c34.1439288881.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20150811144345.GN5180@mwanda> <20150811145938.GA32049@linux> <20150811171132.GA25166@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150811171132.GA25166@mwanda> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11-08-15, 20:11, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 08:29:38PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > This is weird to me, because we are going backwards. What happens if > > > we goto free_table without adding anything? > > > > It will WARN() today. > > Then the current code is buggy. Urg, it wouldn't WARN in this case. Sorry, didn't read it correctly earlier. > > > I suspect it's fine, but if > > > it's a bug then this code still has problems. > > > > I don't think we have a bug here, we never added anything and so don't > > need to free it. > > > > > What about if we only increment count when _opp_add_static_v2() > > > succeeds > > > > That's not what we want. > > If the first call to _opp_add_static_v2() fails we call > of_free_opp_table() and you say that triggers a WARN(). No it doesn't. So, coming back to the point you made about freeing table on !count, because there were no nodes present in the DT opp table, we have never tried to add any OPPs. And so there is no need to call of_free_opp_table() in that case. Do you still think the current code is wrong ? -- viresh