On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:03:49 +0000 "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 19.02.13 at 06:53, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > > From: Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:29:20 +0100 > > > >> netbk_fatal_tx_err() calls xenvif_carrier_off(), which does > >> a xenvif_put(). As callers of netbk_fatal_tx_err should only > >> have one reference to the vif at this time, then the xenvif_put > >> in netbk_fatal_tx_err is one too many. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> > > > > Applied. > > But this is wrong from all we can tell, we discussed this before > (Wei pointed to the discussion in an earlier reply). The core of > it is that the put here parallels the one in netbk_tx_err(), and > the one in xenvif_carrier_off() matches the get from > xenvif_connect() (which normally would be done on the path > coming through xenvif_disconnect()). I see the balance described by Ian in [1] now. Sorry that I missed that previous discussion and generated this noise. [1] http://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=136084174026977&w=2 drew > > And anyway - shouldn't changes to netback require an ack from > Ian? > > Jan > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
