From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755725AbbLGMZq (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:25:46 -0500 Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.24]:48974 "EHLO lb1-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754254AbbLGMZp (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:25:45 -0500 Message-ID: <1449491141.3615.11.camel@tiscali.nl> Subject: Re: gigaset: freeing an active object From: Paul Bolle To: Tilman Schmidt , Peter Hurley , Sasha Levin Cc: isdn@linux-pingi.de, davem@davemloft.net, gigaset307x-common@lists.sourceforge.net, LKML , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , syzkaller Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:25:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: <566550E7.80801@imap.cc> References: <56587467.8050102@oracle.com> <565B1A1B.8020503@imap.cc> <565B4256.6080101@hurleysoftware.com> <565B4844.9020600@imap.cc> <1448828800.2603.17.camel@tiscali.nl> <1448839396.2891.14.camel@tiscali.nl> <1448906497.3546.16.camel@tiscali.nl> <565F8341.7010704@hurleysoftware.com> <1449408690.2515.15.camel@tiscali.nl> <5664545C.90607@imap.cc> <1449432742.2515.20.camel@tiscali.nl> <566550E7.80801@imap.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5 (3.16.5-3.fc22) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Re-added mailinglist that got dropped somehow.] On ma, 2015-12-07 at 10:27 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > Am 06.12.2015 um 21:12 schrieb Paul Bolle: > > This solution assumes that the struct platform_device is moved out > > of > > the struct ser_cardstate, doesn't it? In other words, this is > > something > > to do on top of my (draft) patch. > > No, that wasn't my intention. I thought of that solution as an > alternative, not an increment to your patch. > > > Otherwise we'd still be freeing memory > > managed through reference counting. > > Now I#m confused. I thought by following Peter's suggestion to put the > kfree() in the release method we'd avoid just that. (Your patch compiles just fine.) Apparently it does, because I can't trigger the WARNING we're discussing here with your patch applied. I'll have to dive into this stuff again, because apparently my mental model of what's going on is incomplete at best. In the mean time you might want to turn your patch into something that can actually be applied (with or without my Sign-off or Ack; I don't care how it finds its way into the tree). Please add add Fixes: 2869b23e4b95 ("[PATCH] drivers/isdn/gigaset: new M101 driver (v2)") (Perhaps with a comment that v2.6.32 needs a trivial context change; I'm not sure how that needs to be communicated.) But I'm fine with cobbling together a commit explanation myself if you're too busy right now. Thanks, Paul Bolle