On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 10:59:15AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 7/10/24 12:09 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/device.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/device.c > >> index 55aa7aa32d4a..7ddaec923569 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/device.c > >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/device.c > >> @@ -2167,7 +2167,7 @@ int ib_device_set_netdev(struct ib_device *ib_dev, struct net_device *ndev, > >> } > >> > >> if (old_ndev) > >> - netdev_tracker_free(ndev, &pdata->netdev_tracker); > >> + netdev_put(old_ndev, &pdata->netdev_tracker); > > > > It should stay netdev_tracker_free() and not netdev_put(). We are > > calling to __dev_put(old_ndev) later in the function. > > > > missed that and KASAN and refcount debugging did not complain ... > > Anyways, why have the 2 split apart? ie., why not remove the __dev_put > and just do netdev_put here? old_ndev is not needed in between calls. > Asymmetric calls like this are always confusing. You probably can combine them, but to do so instead of __dev_put() and not netdev_tracker_free(). Thanks
