[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170408101401.10ee916e@plumbers-lap.home.lan>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 10:14:01 -0400
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>, idosch@...lanox.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, peter@...nota.eu, cera@...a.cz,
mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] bridge: implement missing ndo_uninit()
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:05:48 +0300
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On 08/04/17 16:49, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> +1
>
>
If this fixes the issue, then the one fix should go to stable, net and net-next.
There is no good reason to have two versions.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists