On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Robert Love <robert.w.love@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 20:47 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
>> There seems frame should be freed against memory leakage.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_fcp.c   2010-09-13 07:07:38.000000000 +0800
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_fcp.c   2010-10-25 20:33:58.000000000 +0800
>> @@ -1685,6 +1685,7 @@ static void fc_fcp_srr_resp(struct fc_se
>> Â Â Â Â*/
>> Â Â Â if (fh->fh_type == FC_TYPE_BLS) {
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â fc_fcp_unlock_pkt(fsp);
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â fc_frame_free(fp);
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return;
>> Â Â Â }
>
> My first thought was that we need to do a fc_fcp_pkt_release here since
> we're doing a fc_fcp_pkt_hold in fc_fcp_srr, but on further
Yes, the pkt hold should get dropped.
> consideration I think this BLS check is unnecessary. fc_exch_recv checks
> for BLS frames before calling any of the response handlers.
If BLS encountered there is a chance in fc_exch_abts_resp() to call
response handler.
And fix looks like,
if (fh->fh_type == FC_TYPE_BLS) {
fc_fcp_unlock_pkt(fsp);
+ fc_frame_free(fp);
+ fc_fcp_pkt_release(fsp);
return;
}
right?
//Hillf
--
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
