On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:05:48 +0300 Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > > If this fixes the issue, then the one fix should go to stable, net and net-next. There is no good reason to have two versions.