From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 08:10:49 -0800 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Rashika Kheria Cc: opw-kernel , Minchan Kim , Jiang Liu , Nitin Gupta , Jerome Marchand , Linux-Kernel , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OPW kernel] Re: [PATCH v10] Staging: zram: Fix memory leak by refcount mismatch Message-ID: <20131110161049.GA17019@kroah.com> References: <20131019110539.GA25167@gmail.com> <1383314769-3667-1-git-send-email-rashika.kheria@gmail.com> <20131110154522.GA28926@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 09:26:15PM +0530, Rashika Kheria wrote: > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 07:36:09PM +0530, Rashika Kheria wrote: > >> As suggested by Minchan Kim and Jerome Marchand "The code in reset_store > >> get the block device (bdget_disk()) but it does not put it (bdput()) when > >> it's done using it. The usage count is therefore incremented but never > >> decremented." > >> > >> This patch also puts bdput() for all error cases. > >> > >> Acked-by: Minchan Kim > >> Acked-by: Jerome Marchand > >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > >> Signed-off-by: Rashika Kheria > >> --- > >> > >> This revision fixes the following issue of the previous revision- > >> Incorrect Subject Line > > > > I'm a bit confused now, I see three different zram patches from you, > > with different subjects, are they all now just in one patch, this one? > > > > Can you just send me the outstanding zram patches that you have gotten > > acks from that you want applied, as I'm lost here. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg "easily confused" k-h > > > > Hi Greg, > > You have already applied the rest two patches for this driver. This is > the only patch which is left. > > But I think you might have problem applying this because there have > been changes in previous patches later i.e you applied v8 of this > series, while, maintainers later suggested to change more and hence v9 > was also introduced. > > Therefore, v9's patch 1 and v10 patch is correct to be applied in the tree. Hm, can you please resend them, as I no longer have them in my queue. thanks, greg k-h