From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA34C3A5A1 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:39:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC252173E for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:39:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726845AbfH1RjH (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:39:07 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:17071 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726515AbfH1RjH (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:39:07 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Aug 2019 10:38:59 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,441,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="381360027" Received: from ellie.jf.intel.com (HELO ellie) ([10.24.12.211]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2019 10:38:58 -0700 From: Vinicius Costa Gomes To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, Jiri Pirko , "David S. Miller" , vedang.patel@intel.com, leandro.maciel.dorileo@intel.com, netdev Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/3] taprio: Fix kernel panic in taprio_destroy In-Reply-To: References: <20190828144829.32570-1-olteanv@gmail.com> <20190828144829.32570-2-olteanv@gmail.com> <87a7btqmk7.fsf@intel.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:38:58 -0700 Message-ID: <87sgplp4ul.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Vladimir Oltean writes: >> Personally, I would do things differently, I am thinking: adding the >> taprio instance earlier to the list in taprio_init(), and keeping >> taprio_destroy() the way it is now. But take this more as a suggestion >> :-) >> > > While I don't strongly oppose your proposal (keep the list removal > unconditional, but match it better in placement to the list addition), > I think it's rather fragile and I do see this bug recurring in the > future. Anyway if you want to keep it "simpler" I can respin it like > that. > I am thinking that keeping things "simpler" has the advantage of making any bugs really loud and hopefully easier to catch. Cheers, -- Vinicius