From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ido Schimmel Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] bridge: implement missing ndo_uninit() Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:49:38 +0300 Message-ID: <20170408134938.GA28955@splinter> References: <20170408114159.12722-1-idosch@mellanox.com> <20170408114159.12722-2-idosch@mellanox.com> <20170408093042.20b08c5d@plumbers-lap.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: cera@cera.cz, mlxsw@mellanox.com, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, peter@svinota.eu, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, idosch@mellanox.com, davem@davemloft.net To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170408093042.20b08c5d@plumbers-lap.home.lan> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:30:42AM -0400, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:41:58 +0300 > 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.