[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9d515be6-5430-7ca2-24e8-a8c3798beec9@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:38:30 +0800
From: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty:n_gsm.c: destroy port by tty_port_destroy()
On 2019/10/31 18:11, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 24. 09. 19, 11:25, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
>> According to the comment of tty_port_destroy():
>> When a port was initialized using tty_port_init, one has to destroy
>> the port by tty_port_destroy();
>
> It continues with a part saying:
> Either indirectly by using tty_port refcounting
> (tty_port_put) or directly if refcounting is not used.
>
>> tty_port_init() is called in gsm_dlci_alloc()
>> so tty_port_destroy() needs to be called in gsm_dlci_free()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/tty/n_gsm.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c b/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
>> index 36a3eb4..3f5bcc9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
>> @@ -1681,6 +1681,7 @@ static void gsm_dlci_free(struct tty_port *port)
>>
>> del_timer_sync(&dlci->t1);
>> dlci->gsm->dlci[dlci->addr] = NULL;
>> + tty_port_destroy(&dlci->port);
>
> This is wrong. gsm_dlci_free is tty_port_operations->destruct, i.e.
> n_gsm uses tty_port refcounting and tty_port_destroy was called on this
> port in tty_port_destructor already.
>
> Greg, please revert.
>
> thanks,
>
Function call flow
tty_port_put
===> tty_port_destructor
===> tty_port_destroy
Port->ops->destruct(port);
===> .destruct = gsm_dlci_free
Thank you for your correction, I am wrong.
thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists