Am 06.12.2015 um 21:12 schrieb Paul Bolle:

On zo, 2015-12-06 at 16:29 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:

quoted

So the solution might be as simple as moving the kfree() call from
gigaset_freecshw() to gigaset_device_release(). Something like this:

--- a/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c
+++ b/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c

@@ -370,19 +370,18 @@ static void gigaset_freecshw(struct cardstate

*cs)
        tasklet_kill(&cs->write_tasklet);
        if (!cs->hw.ser)
                return;
-       dev_set_drvdata(&cs->hw.ser->dev.dev, NULL);
        platform_device_unregister(&cs->hw.ser->dev);
-       kfree(cs->hw.ser);
-       cs->hw.ser = NULL;
 }

 static void gigaset_device_release(struct device *dev)
 {
-       struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
+       struct cardstate *cs = dev_get_drvdata(dev);

-       /* adapted from platform_device_release() in drivers/base/platform.c */
-       kfree(dev->platform_data);
-       kfree(pdev->resource);
+       if (!cs)
+               return;
+       dev_set_drvdata(dev, NULL);
+       kfree(cs->hw.ser);
+       cs->hw.ser = NULL;
 }

This solution assumes that the struct platform_device is moved out of
the struct ser_cardstate, doesn't it? In other words, this is something
to do on top of my (draft) patch.

No, that wasn't my intention. I thought of that solution as an
alternative, not an increment to your patch.

Otherwise we'd still be freeing memory
managed through reference counting.

Now I#m confused. I thought by following Peter's suggestion to put the
kfree() in the release method we'd avoid just that.

Regards,
Tilman

-- 
Tilman Schmidt                              E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc
Bonn, Germany
Nous, on a des fleurs et des bougies pour nous protéger.