[RFC PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use devm_ prefixed allocations

To simplify and prevent memory leakage when unbinding, use
the devm_ memory allocation calls.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>
---
 net/dsa/dsa.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa.c b/net/dsa/dsa.c
index c59fa5d..98f94c2 100644
--- a/net/dsa/dsa.c
+++ b/net/dsa/dsa.c

@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static int dsa_switch_setup_one(struct dsa_switch *ds, struct device *parent)
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto out;

-	ds->slave_mii_bus = mdiobus_alloc();
+	ds->slave_mii_bus = devm_mdiobus_alloc(parent);
 	if (ds->slave_mii_bus == NULL) {
 		ret = -ENOMEM;
 		goto out;

@@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ dsa_switch_setup(struct dsa_switch_tree *dst, int index,
 	/*
 	 * Allocate and initialise switch state.
 	 */
-	ds = kzalloc(sizeof(*ds) + drv->priv_size, GFP_KERNEL);
+	ds = devm_kzalloc(parent, sizeof(*ds) + drv->priv_size, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (ds == NULL)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);

@@ -883,7 +883,7 @@ static int dsa_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		goto out;
 	}

-	dst = kzalloc(sizeof(*dst), GFP_KERNEL);
+	dst = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*dst), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (dst == NULL) {
 		dev_put(dev);
 		ret = -ENOMEM;

-- 
1.9.1

Hi Neil

I tested all three patches on a board with three switches.

1) Normal boot
2) Bad address set for the 3rd switch so that it was not found, so
   causing the probe to fail.

No regressions observed. 

Tested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>

As Florian said, this is going in the right direction for modular DSA,
but still quite a way to go...

    Thanks
	Andrew

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:21:08AM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Neil Armstrong [off-list ref] wrote:

Shouldn't devm_ functions be called only from probe and remove functions?

On 30/09/15 14:34, Fabio Estevam wrote:

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Neil Armstrong [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

To simplify and prevent memory leakage when unbinding, use
the devm_ memory allocation calls.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>
---
 net/dsa/dsa.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa.c b/net/dsa/dsa.c
index c59fa5d..98f94c2 100644
--- a/net/dsa/dsa.c
+++ b/net/dsa/dsa.c

@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static int dsa_switch_setup_one(struct dsa_switch *ds, struct device *parent)
        if (ret < 0)
                goto out;

-       ds->slave_mii_bus = mdiobus_alloc();
+       ds->slave_mii_bus = devm_mdiobus_alloc(parent);
        if (ds->slave_mii_bus == NULL) {
                ret = -ENOMEM;
                goto out;

@@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ dsa_switch_setup(struct dsa_switch_tree *dst, int index,
        /*
         * Allocate and initialise switch state.
         */
-       ds = kzalloc(sizeof(*ds) + drv->priv_size, GFP_KERNEL);
+       ds = devm_kzalloc(parent, sizeof(*ds) + drv->priv_size, GFP_KERNEL);

Shouldn't devm_ functions be called only from probe and remove functions?

That's the case AFAICT, the call chain looks like this:

dsa_probe()
	-> dsa_setup_dst()
		-> dsa_switch_setup()
			-> dsa_switch_setup_one()
-- 
Florian

On 30/09/15 01:21, Neil Armstrong wrote:

To simplify and prevent memory leakage when unbinding, use
the devm_ memory allocation calls.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>

For this entire series, on BCM7445 (using bcm_sf2)

Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>

Thanks!
-- 
Florian