Re: [PATCH] net: mdio: mdio-mux: fix device_node reference leak on success

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 01:56:12 +0800, Haotian Zhang wrote:
> mdio_mux_init() obtains a reference to the parent bus device_node with
> of_parse_phandle() when no mux_bus is passed in. All error paths release
> it through err_parent_bus, but the success path at the end of the
> function returns without calling of_node_put(). of_mdio_find_bus() only
> takes a reference to the embedded struct device, so the device_node
> reference is leaked for every multiplexer that probes successfully.
> 
> Release parent_bus_node before returning from the success path.
> 
> Fixes: 0ca2997d1452 ("netdev/of/phy: Add MDIO bus multiplexer support.")
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
> Signed-off-by: Haotian Zhang <vulab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/net/mdio/mdio-mux.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 



Multiple things here:
1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback.

2. You use multiple identities with this email, thus I actually doubt we speak
   with actual person.

3. Finally, same feedback:
You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent
subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was
AI generated and most likely not tested.

More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing
relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult
and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue.
Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each
patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set.
Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite
worrying.

This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many
contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner,
like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down.  Considering all this
is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this
should be considered for review.

Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will
explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per
subsystem (so a patchset grouping multiple patches with a short cover
letter), how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not do
if this was posted in a good faith.

Best regards,
Krzysztof