Ido Schimmel
2017-Apr-08 13:49 UTC
[Bridge] [PATCH net v2 1/2] bridge: implement missing ndo_uninit()
On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:30:42AM -0400, Stephen Hemminger wrote:> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:41:58 +0300 > <idosch at mellanox.com> wrote: > > > static void br_dev_free(struct net_device *dev) > > { > > - struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev); > > - > > - free_percpu(br->stats); > > free_netdev(dev); > > } > > > > Since the only thing left is free_netdev, you can now just set dev->destructor > to be free_netdev.Fine. Beside stylistic issues, I would appreciate comments on how this should be handled. Are we reverting the patch in the Fixes line or applying this patchset? I prefer the first option. Then after net is merged into net-next I can re-post this patchset with the requested changes.
Nikolay Aleksandrov
2017-Apr-08 14:05 UTC
[Bridge] [PATCH net v2 1/2] bridge: implement missing ndo_uninit()
On 08/04/17 16:49, Ido Schimmel wrote:> On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:30:42AM -0400, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:41:58 +0300 >> <idosch at mellanox.com> wrote: >> >>> static void br_dev_free(struct net_device *dev) >>> { >>> - struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev); >>> - >>> - free_percpu(br->stats); >>> free_netdev(dev); >>> } >>> >> >> Since the only thing left is free_netdev, you can now just set dev->destructor >> to be free_netdev. > > Fine. > > Beside stylistic issues, I would appreciate comments on how this should > be handled. Are we reverting the patch in the Fixes line or applying > this patchset? > > I prefer the first option. Then after net is merged into net-next I can > re-post this patchset with the requested changes. >+1