Hi Dan, Rob, Helge
> > - while (1) {
> > + for_each_endpoint_of_node(np, epn) {
> > struct v4l2_fwnode_endpoint v4l2_epn = { .bus_type = 0 };
> > -
> > - epn = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(np, epn);
> > - if (!epn)
> > - return 0;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > ret = v4l2_fwnode_endpoint_parse(of_fwnode_handle(epn),
> > &v4l2_epn);
> > if (ret) {
> > - ret = -EINVAL;
> > + of_node_put(epn);
> > dev_err(dev, "Could not parse the endpoint\n");
> > - break;
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > subdev_entity = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*subdev_entity),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!subdev_entity) {
> > - ret = -ENOMEM;
> > - break;
> > + of_node_put(epn);
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > }
> > subdev_entity->epn = epn;
>
> This code is an example of what Laurent was talking about. We're taking
> storing "subdev_entity->epn = epn" but then not incrementing the
> refcount. Perhaps it's not necessary?
>
> The difference between this and _scoped() would be if we stored epn and
> then returned. I feel like that's less common. We could detect that
> sort of thing using static analysis if it turned out to be an issue.
Thank you for pointing good sample, Dan.
But I wonder should this patch-set include and use _scoped() macro ?
If above is just a comment, _scoped() macro will be separate patch-set.
If above is pointing the issue, v4 need to have _scoped() macro.
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
