[PATCH 1/2][ATM]: Do not free already unregistered net device.

[PATCH 1/2][ATM]: Do not free already unregistered net device.

[Pavel Emelyanov]

Both br2684_push and br2684_exit do so, but unregister_netdev()
releases the device itself.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>

---
 net/atm/br2684.c |    2 --
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/atm/br2684.c b/net/atm/br2684.c
index 1b22806..3a74ff8 100644
--- a/net/atm/br2684.c
+++ b/net/atm/br2684.c
@@ -350,7 +350,6 @@ static void br2684_push(struct atm_vcc *atmvcc, struct sk_buff *skb)
 			list_del(&brdev->br2684_devs);
 			read_unlock(&devs_lock);
 			unregister_netdev(net_dev);
-			free_netdev(net_dev);
 		}
 		return;
 	}
@@ -771,7 +770,6 @@ static void __exit br2684_exit(void)
 
 		list_del(&brdev->br2684_devs);
 		unregister_netdev(net_dev);
-		free_netdev(net_dev);
 	}
 }
 
-- 
1.5.3.4

Re: [PATCH 1/2][ATM]: Do not free already unregistered net device.

[David Miller]

From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 11:37:43 +0400

> Both br2684_push and br2684_exit do so, but unregister_netdev()
> releases the device itself.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>

Applied, thanks.

Re: [PATCH 1/2][ATM]: Do not free already unregistered net device.

[Don Fry]

I do not understand why this change was accepted.  All of the network
drivers I just looked at in 2.6.25 do unregister_netdev() followed
sometime soon by free_netdev().  Is there something different about ATM
devices?  I did not look at all the drivers.

Don

Re: [PATCH 1/2][ATM]: Do not free already unregistered net device.

[David Miller]

From: Don Fry <pcnet32@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 09:44:40 -0700

> I do not understand why this change was accepted.  All of the network
> drivers I just looked at in 2.6.25 do unregister_netdev() followed
> sometime soon by free_netdev().  Is there something different about ATM
> devices?  I did not look at all the drivers.

Indeed, this change does look bogus.

Pavel, please take a look, unregister_netdev() indeed does not free
the netdevice, and something (usually the caller) needs to do it.

I think I should revert your change.

Re: [PATCH 1/2][ATM]: Do not free already unregistered net device.

[Pavel Emelyanov]

David Miller wrote:
> From: Don Fry <pcnet32@verizon.net>
> Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 09:44:40 -0700
> 
>> I do not understand why this change was accepted.  All of the network
>> drivers I just looked at in 2.6.25 do unregister_netdev() followed
>> sometime soon by free_netdev().  Is there something different about ATM
>> devices?  I did not look at all the drivers.
> 
> Indeed, this change does look bogus.
> 
> Pavel, please take a look, unregister_netdev() indeed does not free
> the netdevice, and something (usually the caller) needs to do it.

Indeed :( My bad, I've overlooked the fact, that this device doesn't
have a ->destructor callback set (which most of the others set to the
free_netdev), so the free_netdev is to be called manually.

> I think I should revert your change.

Agree. Sorry, for the confusion.

Re: [PATCH 1/2][ATM]: Do not free already unregistered net device.

[David Miller]

From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 10:34:38 +0400

> David Miller wrote:
> > I think I should revert your change.
> 
> Agree. Sorry, for the confusion.

No worries, thanks for confirming.  I'll revert the change
right now.