On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 09:20:12PM +0800, Yang Yingliang wrote:I didn't find this patch in your trees, does it been merged?
Hi, GregAh! The core doesn't set devt, the caller has that set. That makes
On 2022/10/25 19:50, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 07:39:57PM +0800, Yang Yingliang wrote:Do you mean it's not a bug or the warn can be ignored or it's bug in driver
While doing fault injection test, I got the following report:Nit, please wrap your changelog text at 72 columns.
------------[ cut here ]------------
kobject: '(null)' (0000000039956980): is not initialized, yet kobject_put() is being called.
WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 6306 at kobject_put+0x23d/0x4e0
CPU: 3 PID: 6306 Comm: 283 Tainted: G W 6.1.0-rc2-00005-g307c1086d7c9 #1253
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:kobject_put+0x23d/0x4e0
Call Trace:
<TASK>
cdev_device_add+0x15e/0x1b0
__iio_device_register+0x13b4/0x1af0 [industrialio]
__devm_iio_device_register+0x22/0x90 [industrialio]
max517_probe+0x3d8/0x6b4 [max517]
i2c_device_probe+0xa81/0xc00
When device_add() is injected fault and returns error, if dev->devt is not set,
cdev_add() is not called, cdev_del() is not needed. Fix this by checking dev->devt
in error path.
Fixes: 233ed09d7fda ("chardev: add helper function to register char devs with a struct device")No, this is a layering violation and one that you do not know is really
Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
v1 -> v2:
Add information to update commit message.
v1 link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1959fa74-b06c-b8bc-d14f-b71e5c4290ee@xxxxxxxxxx/T/
---
fs/char_dev.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/char_dev.c b/fs/char_dev.c
index ba0ded7842a7..3f667292608c 100644
--- a/fs/char_dev.c
+++ b/fs/char_dev.c
@@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ int cdev_device_add(struct cdev *cdev, struct device *dev)
}
rc = device_add(dev);
- if (rc)
+ if (rc && dev->devt)
going to be true or not. the devt being present, or not, should not be
an issue of if the device_add failed or not. This isn't correct, sorry.
?
I see devt is checked before calling cdev_del() in cdev_device_del().
more sense now, sorry for the confusion on my side.
Yes, this looks correct, the diff didn't have the full context and I was
confused.
I'll go queue this up, very nice work.
greg k-h
.