From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2][ATM]: Do not free already unregistered net device. Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 10:34:38 +0400 Message-ID: <481FFBFE.4020900@openvz.org> References: <1210005880.5716.4.camel@Linux.home> <20080505.123703.257416714.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pcnet32@verizon.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from sacred.ru ([62.205.161.221]:57287 "EHLO sacred.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751987AbYEFGhe (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 02:37:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080505.123703.257416714.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Don Fry > 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.