On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 09:37:28AM -0800, Mike Anderson wrote: > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 19:56 -0800, Mike Anderson wrote: > > > Can I get your comment(s) on this change. > > > > This looks correct as far as it goes, but it's not complete. > > sas_phy_free() and sas_rphy_free() now do too many parent puts with this > > change (actually, two too many in each case, which looks like a bug in > > the original code). There also looks to be two spurious puts in the > > rphy (for expander and end device) allocation error paths (again, a bug > > in the original code). > > ok, here is an updated patch that covers these cases also. I moved to > using the releases functions in the *_free() cases also as it seems like a > good idea to use the release functions if you can. I have compiled and > tested it on a aic based system, but it does not call the free functions. the _free cases only existed because I didn't want to go through all the driver model ->release stuff initially. now that you do that the _free functions can be removed. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
