On Wed, 2017-09-13 at 21:36 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > Way overdue, but better late than never. No worries, I already applied the patch anyway ;-) > I think we prefer to use > spatch, but I understand the destructor handling in brcmfmac is > complicated. Agree - and making changes across header files is hard in spatch. > The story above does not tell it right. brcmf_add_if() is called > first > doing the alloc_netdev() setting needs_free_netdev to true and > subsequently brcmf_net_attach() is called doing the > register_netdevice(). When that is successful and only then I set > the > priv_destructor. The reason for this was to keep the error path > simple, > because when register_netdevice() fails it calls the priv_destructor > although that is not documented in struct net_device: > > * @priv_destructor: Called from unregister Ok, too late now I guess, since the patch is in. But at least we'll have your explanation here :) > I think I will make an attempt to change brcmfmac so we can get rid > of this patch file and rely on the spatch, but for now I am fine with > it. Thanks for the review! johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
