On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:05 AM Dan Carpenter [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[snip]

I've already said that I don't think the patch is correct and offered
an alternative which takes a reference in accept() but also adds a
matching put()...  But I can't really test my patch so if we're going to
do something that we know is wrong, I'd prefer to just revert Duoming's
patch.

Dan, may I ask how you determined that Lars's patch is incorrect?
Testing so far indicates that it works as expected. On the other hand,
Lars tested your patch and found that it did not address the
underlying issue
(https://marc.info/?l=linux-hams&m=171646940902757&w=2).

If I may suggest a path forward, given that observed results show that
Lars's patch works as expected, perhaps we can commit that and then
work to incorporate a more robust ref counting strategy a la your
patch?

        - Dan C.