[PATCH v2 1/5] net: dsa: add missing kfree on remove
Subsystems:
networking [dsa] , networking [general] , the rest
3988d
6 messages,
2 authors,
2015-10-06 · open the first message on its own page
To prevent memory leakage on unbinding, add missing kfree calls.
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>
---
net/dsa/dsa.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa.c b/net/dsa/dsa.c
index c59fa5d..12cec40 100644
--- a/net/dsa/dsa.c
+++ b/net/dsa/dsa.c @@ -914,8 +914,10 @@ static void dsa_remove_dst(struct dsa_switch_tree *dst)
for ( i = 0 ; i < dst -> pd -> nr_chips ; i ++ ) {
struct dsa_switch * ds = dst -> ds [ i ];
- if ( ds != NULL ) + if ( ds != NULL ) { dsa_switch_destroy ( ds );
+ kfree ( ds ); + } }
}
@@ -924,6 +926,7 @@ static int dsa_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
struct dsa_switch_tree * dst = platform_get_drvdata ( pdev );
dsa_remove_dst ( dst );
+ kfree ( dst ); dsa_of_remove ( & pdev -> dev );
return 0 ; --
1.9.1
Hello.
On 10/3/2015 5:25 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
quoted hunk To prevent memory leakage on unbinding, add missing kfree calls.
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>
---
net/dsa/dsa.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa.c b/net/dsa/dsa.c
index c59fa5d..12cec40 100644
--- a/net/dsa/dsa.c
+++ b/net/dsa/dsa.c @@ -914,8 +914,10 @@ static void dsa_remove_dst(struct dsa_switch_tree *dst)
for ( i = 0 ; i < dst -> pd -> nr_chips ; i ++ ) {
struct dsa_switch * ds = dst -> ds [ i ];
- if ( ds != NULL ) + if ( ds != NULL ) {
Didn;t scripts/checkpatch.pl complain here? just if (ds) is preferred in
the networking code.
MBR, Sergei
On 10/03/2015 04:33 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: Hello.
On 10/3/2015 5:25 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
quoted To prevent memory leakage on unbinding, add missing kfree calls.
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>
---
net/dsa/dsa.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa.c b/net/dsa/dsa.c
index c59fa5d..12cec40 100644
--- a/net/dsa/dsa.c
+++ b/net/dsa/dsa.c @@ -914,8 +914,10 @@ static void dsa_remove_dst(struct dsa_switch_tree *dst)
for ( i = 0 ; i < dst -> pd -> nr_chips ; i ++ ) {
struct dsa_switch * ds = dst -> ds [ i ];
- if ( ds != NULL ) + if ( ds != NULL ) {
Didn;t scripts/checkpatch.pl complain here? just if (ds) is preferred in the networking code.
MBR, Sergei Yes,
But I considered the cosmetic changes are not the subject of this serie.
Neil
On 10/3/2015 6:20 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
quoted On 10/3/2015 5:25 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
quoted To prevent memory leakage on unbinding, add missing kfree calls.
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>
---
net/dsa/dsa.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa.c b/net/dsa/dsa.c
index c59fa5d..12cec40 100644
--- a/net/dsa/dsa.c
+++ b/net/dsa/dsa.c @@ -914,8 +914,10 @@ static void dsa_remove_dst(struct dsa_switch_tree *dst)
for ( i = 0 ; i < dst -> pd -> nr_chips ; i ++ ) {
struct dsa_switch * ds = dst -> ds [ i ];
- if ( ds != NULL ) + if ( ds != NULL ) {
Didn;t scripts/checkpatch.pl complain here? just if (ds) is preferred in the networking code.
MBR, Sergei Yes,
But I considered the cosmetic changes are not the subject of this serie.
Formally, all the patches should be checkpatch-clean...
Neil
MBR, Sergei
On 10/03/2015 10:54 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: On 10/3/2015 6:20 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
quoted quoted On 10/3/2015 5:25 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
quoted To prevent memory leakage on unbinding, add missing kfree calls.
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>
---
net/dsa/dsa.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa.c b/net/dsa/dsa.c
index c59fa5d..12cec40 100644
--- a/net/dsa/dsa.c
+++ b/net/dsa/dsa.c @@ -914,8 +914,10 @@ static void dsa_remove_dst(struct dsa_switch_tree *dst)
for ( i = 0 ; i < dst -> pd -> nr_chips ; i ++ ) {
struct dsa_switch * ds = dst -> ds [ i ];
- if ( ds != NULL ) + if ( ds != NULL ) {
Didn;t scripts/checkpatch.pl complain here? just if (ds) is preferred in the networking code.
MBR, Sergei Yes,
But I considered the cosmetic changes are not the subject of this serie.
Formally, all the patches should be checkpatch-clean...
quoted Neil
MBR, Sergei Sure,
How should I handle this case ?
A separate patch with the cosmetic change before the kfree addition ?
Neil
Hello.
On 10/6/2015 10:25 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
quoted quoted quoted quoted To prevent memory leakage on unbinding, add missing kfree calls.
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>
---
net/dsa/dsa.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa.c b/net/dsa/dsa.c
index c59fa5d..12cec40 100644
--- a/net/dsa/dsa.c
+++ b/net/dsa/dsa.c @@ -914,8 +914,10 @@ static void dsa_remove_dst(struct dsa_switch_tree *dst)
for ( i = 0 ; i < dst -> pd -> nr_chips ; i ++ ) {
struct dsa_switch * ds = dst -> ds [ i ];
- if ( ds != NULL ) + if ( ds != NULL ) {
Didn;t scripts/checkpatch.pl complain here? just if (ds) is preferred in the networking code.
MBR, Sergei Yes,
But I considered the cosmetic changes are not the subject of this serie.
Formally, all the patches should be checkpatch-clean...
quoted Neil
MBR, Sergei Sure, How should I handle this case ?
A separate patch with the cosmetic change before the kfree addition ?
No, that would classify as a cleanup, and cleanups shouldn't be queued
before fixes (should be the other way around). Just do this in this same
patch, possibly mentioning in the change log.
Neil
MBR, Sergei