David S. Miller [off-list ref] wrote:

Maybe new code should be something like:

               if (dev && dev != &loopback_dev) {

You want
		 if (dev) {
here.

                       dev_put(dev);
                       in6_dev_put(idev);
               }
               dev = &loopback_dev;
               dev_hold(dev);
               idev = in6_dev_get(dev);
               if (!idev) {
                       err = -ENODEV;
                       goto out;
               }

What do you think?

Yes this would work.  But I think Yoshifuji-san is trying to avoid the
unnecessary put/get in the case where dev is already loopback_dev.
So something like this might work:

		if (dev != &loopback_dev) {
			if (dev) {
				dev_put(dev);
				in6_dev_put(idev);
			}
			...
		}
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} [off-list ref]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt