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.
