<div dir="auto"><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">Dne 8. 4. 2017 10:14 napsal uživatel "Stephen Hemminger" <<a href="mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org">stephen@networkplumber.org</a>>:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="elided-text">On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:05:48 +0300<br>
Nikolay Aleksandrov <<a href="mailto:nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com">nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 08/04/17 16:49, Ido Schimmel wrote:<br>
> > On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:30:42AM -0400, Stephen Hemminger wrote:<br>
> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:41:58 +0300<br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:idosch@mellanox.com">idosch@mellanox.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >>> static void br_dev_free(struct net_device *dev)<br>
> >>> {<br>
> >>> - struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev);<br>
> >>> -<br>
> >>> - free_percpu(br->stats);<br>
> >>> free_netdev(dev);<br>
> >>> }<br>
> >>><br>
> >><br>
> >> Since the only thing left is free_netdev, you can now just set dev->destructor<br>
> >> to be free_netdev.<br>
> ><br>
> > Fine.<br>
> ><br>
> > Beside stylistic issues, I would appreciate comments on how this should<br>
> > be handled. Are we reverting the patch in the Fixes line or applying<br>
> > this patchset?<br>
> ><br>
> > I prefer the first option. Then after net is merged into net-next I can<br>
> > re-post this patchset with the requested changes.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> +1<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div>If this fixes the issue, then the one fix should go to stable, net and net-next.<br>
There is no good reason to have two versions.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>+1</div></div></div>