From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Love Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libfc: fix mem leak in fc_tm_done() Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:24:15 -0700 Message-ID: <1288229055.1431.46.camel@fritz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devel-bounces-s9riP+hp16TNLxjTenLetw@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devel-bounces-s9riP+hp16TNLxjTenLetw@public.gmane.org To: Hillf Danton Cc: devel-s9riP+hp16TNLxjTenLetw@public.gmane.org, linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 20:37 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > There seems frame should get freed against memory leakage. > > Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton > --- > > --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_fcp.c 2010-09-13 07:07:38.000000000 +0800 > +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_fcp.c 2010-10-25 20:31:04.000000000 +0800 > @@ -1294,6 +1294,7 @@ static void fc_tm_done(struct fc_seq *se > */ > if (!fsp->seq_ptr || !fsp->wait_for_comp) { > spin_unlock_bh(&fsp->scsi_pkt_lock); I wonder if this should be a fc_fcp_unlock_pkt(fsp) since we get the lock with the fc_fcp_lock_pkt(fsp) call above. > + fc_frame_free(fp); > return; > } > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel-s9riP+hp16TNLxjTenLetw@public.gmane.org > http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel