netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] bridge: implement missing ndo

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:49:38 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     idosch@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, peter@...nota.eu, cera@...a.cz,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] bridge: implement missing ndo_uninit()

On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:30:42AM -0400, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:41:58 +0300
> <idosch@...lanox.com> wrote:
> 
> >  static void br_dev_free(struct net_device *dev)
> >  {
> > -	struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev);
> > -
> > -	free_percpu(br->stats);
> >  	free_netdev(dev);
> >  }
> >  
> 
> Since the only thing left is free_netdev, you can now just set dev->destructor
> to be free_netdev.

Fine.

Beside stylistic issues, I would appreciate comments on how this should
be handled. Are we reverting the patch in the Fixes line or applying
this patchset?

I prefer the first option. Then after net is merged into net-next I can
re-post this patchset with the requested changes.