From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f66.google.com ([209.85.160.66]:36533 "EHLO mail-pl0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751593AbeFDAto (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jun 2018 20:49:44 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-f66.google.com with SMTP id v24-v6so18597752plo.3 for ; Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 17:49:40 -0700 From: Bjorn Andersson To: Srinivas Kandagatla Cc: ohad@wizery.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, bgoswami@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rohkumar@qti.qualcomm.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rpmsg: smd: do not use mananged resources for endpoints and channels Message-ID: <20180604004940.GA3206@builder> References: <20180601233231.11230-1-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180601233231.11230-1-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri 01 Jun 16:32 PDT 2018, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > @@ -1380,11 +1380,13 @@ static void qcom_smd_edge_release(struct device *dev) > { > struct qcom_smd_channel *channel; > struct qcom_smd_edge *edge = to_smd_edge(dev); > + struct list_head *this, *tmp; > > - list_for_each_entry(channel, &edge->channels, list) { > - SET_RX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, state, SMD_CHANNEL_CLOSED); > - SET_RX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, head, 0); > - SET_RX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, tail, 0); > + list_for_each_safe(this, tmp, &edge->channels) { > + channel = list_entry(this, struct qcom_smd_channel, list); Is there a reason not to use list_for_each_entry_safe()? > + list_del(&channel->list); > + kfree(channel->name); > + kfree(channel); Regards, Bjorn