lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] TTY: n_gsm, fix false positive WARN_ON
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:32 AM, xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> hi, Jiri
>
> On 2015/11/25 17:56, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/25/2015, 07:32 AM, xinhui wrote:
>>>
>>> This warning should blame on commit 5a640967 ("tty/n_gsm.c: fix a
>>> memory leak in gsmld_open()").
>>
>>
>> Oh, yes, I messed up the "Fixes" line then. It should write:
>> Fixes: 5a640967 ("tty/n_gsm.c: fix a memory leak in gsmld_open()")
>>
> that's Okay. :)
>
>>> I have one confusion. As there is field gsm->num to store the index of
>>> gsm_mux[]. so in gsm_cleanup_mux(), why we still use for-loop to find
>>> this mux?
>>>
>>> In error handle path, for example, the call trace in this patch, as we
>>> failed to activate it and the
>>> gsm->num is invalid(and the value is 0). we can just modify the codes
>>> like below:
>>>
>>> if(gsm_mux[gsm->num] == gsm)
>>> ....other work
>>> else
>>> return;
>>>
>>> I think it would work, and the logic is correct. Or I just miss
>>> something important?
>>
>>
>> Yup, it looks like a cleanup. Could you prepare a separate patch for that?
>>
> yes, I will do that :)
>
>> Something like this:
>> /* open failed before registering => nothing to do */
>> if (gsm_mux[gsm->num] != gsm)
>> return;
>> spin_lock(&gsm_mux_lock);
>> gsm_mux[gsm->num] = NULL;
>> spin_unlock(&gsm_mux_lock);
>>
> looks pretty good, thanks.


This is still not merged and fires regularly for me. Can we please merge it?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-28 17:41    [W:0.116 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site