On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:16:36PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Bjorn Helgaas
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:46:39 -0500
>
> > You're right, there is an issue here. I reproduced a problem with a
> > bond device. bond_netpoll_setup() calls __netpoll_setup() directly
> > (not netpoll_setup()).
From: Bjorn Helgaas
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:46:39 -0500
> You're right, there is an issue here. I reproduced a problem with a
> bond device. bond_netpoll_setup() calls __netpoll_setup() directly
> (not netpoll_setup()). I'll debug it more; just wanted to let you
> know there *is* a problem w
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 07:33:42AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:56:21PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > netpoll_setup() does a dev_hold() on np->dev, the netpoll device. If it
> > fails, it correctly does a dev_put() but leaves np->dev set. If we call
> > netpoll_cleanup
From: Bjorn Helgaas
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:56:21 -0500
> netpoll_setup() does a dev_hold() on np->dev, the netpoll device. If it
> fails, it correctly does a dev_put() but leaves np->dev set. If we call
> netpoll_cleanup() after the failure, np->dev is still set so we do another
> dev_put(),
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:56:21PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> netpoll_setup() does a dev_hold() on np->dev, the netpoll device. If it
> fails, it correctly does a dev_put() but leaves np->dev set. If we call
> netpoll_cleanup() after the failure, np->dev is still set so we do another
> dev_put
netpoll_setup() does a dev_hold() on np->dev, the netpoll device. If it
fails, it correctly does a dev_put() but leaves np->dev set. If we call
netpoll_cleanup() after the failure, np->dev is still set so we do another
dev_put(), which decrements the refcount an extra time.
It's questionable to
