On 10/09, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> As __clk_release could call kfree on clk and then we wouldn't have a safe way
> of getting the module that owns the clock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.viz...@collabora.com>
It would be good to mark this as a "Fixes:".
> ---
> drivers/clk/clk.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> index d0712b7..40aa7ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> @@ -2268,14 +2268,16 @@ int __clk_get(struct clk *clk)
>
> void __clk_put(struct clk *clk)
> {
> + struct module *owner;
> +
> if (!clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)))
> return;
>
> clk_prepare_lock();
> + owner = clk->owner;
> kref_put(&clk->ref, __clk_release);
> + module_put(owner);
> clk_prepare_unlock();
> -
> - module_put(clk->owner);
We don't need to move this call under the prepare lock though, right?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
