piaojun wrote on Fri, Aug 10, 2018: > Could you help paste the test result of before-after-applied this patch in > comment? And please see my comments below. Thanks the the review, do you mean the commit message? I'll add the summary I wrote in reply to your question a few mails before. > > diff --git a/include/net/9p/9p.h b/include/net/9p/9p.h > > index e23896116d9a..645266b74652 100644 > > --- a/include/net/9p/9p.h > > +++ b/include/net/9p/9p.h > > @@ -336,6 +336,9 @@ enum p9_qid_t { > > #define P9_NOFID (u32)(~0) > > #define P9_MAXWELEM 16 > > > > +/* Minimal header size: len + id + tag */ > > Here should be 'size + id + tag'. hm I didn't want to repeat size, but I guess people do refer to that field as size. I'll actually rewrite it as: Minimal header size: size[4] type[1] tag[2] > > + kmem_cache_destroy(clnt->fcall_cache); > > I'm afraid that we should check NULL for clnt->fcall_cache. kmem_cache_destroy() in mm/slab_common.c does the null check for us: ------ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s) { int err; if (unlikely(!s)) return; ------ -- Dominique