On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:49:21AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:37:09PM -0700, Josh Cartwright wrote:

quoted

+++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi.c

@@ -0,0 +1,449 @@

[..]

quoted

+static void spmi_ctrl_release(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct spmi_controller *ctrl = to_spmi_controller(dev);
+	complete(&ctrl->dev_released);

When is this memory going to be freed?

Ah, you think it will be when you remove the device later on:

quoted

+int spmi_del_controller(struct spmi_controller *ctrl)
+{
+	struct spmi_controller *found;
+
+	if (!ctrl)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	/* Check that the ctrl has been added */
+	mutex_lock(&board_lock);
+	found = idr_find(&ctrl_idr, ctrl->nr);
+	mutex_unlock(&board_lock);
+
+	if (found != ctrl)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	spmi_dfs_del_controller(ctrl);
+
+	/* Remove all the clients associated with this controller */
+	mutex_lock(&board_lock);
+	bus_for_each_dev(&spmi_bus_type, NULL, ctrl, spmi_ctrl_remove_device);
+	idr_remove(&ctrl_idr, ctrl->nr);
+	mutex_unlock(&board_lock);
+
+	init_completion(&ctrl->dev_released);
+	device_unregister(&ctrl->dev);
+	wait_for_completion(&ctrl->dev_released);

But you just leaked memory, right?

You should never have to wait for this to happen, why did you need to
add this?  Why not just a simple call to kfree() in the release
function?

Unfortunately, the reason why this was necessary may be lost to history.  :(

I'll do some testing with the completion removed and a simple kfree() in
the release and see if there is any fallout.

Thanks,
  Josh

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation