Re: [PATCH] TTY: n_gsm, fix false positive WARN_ON
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: 2016-03-01 17:15:57
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:03:30AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 05:16:15PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:quoted
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:32 AM, xinhui [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
hi, Jiri On 2015/11/25 17:56, Jiri Slaby wrote:quoted
Hi, On 11/25/2015, 07:32 AM, xinhui wrote:quoted
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. :)quoted
quoted
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 :)quoted
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?merge what? I don't see any patch here or in my queue for this :("[PATCH] TTY: n_gsm, fix false positive WARN_ON" from Jiri Slaby: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/24/600 FWIW I have it in my tree for 3 months. Warnings have gone. No issues noticed.
I don't see it in my queue, nor in Linus's tree, so someone needs to
resend it if they want it merged into the kernel tree...
{hint}