On 06/18/2013 08:26 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 14:32 -0700, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
static void ieee80211_destroy_assoc_data(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
- bool assoc)
+ bool assoc, bool put_bss)
Do we _really_ need another argument? Shouldn't it always be put in the
non-assoc case anyway, at least if non-NULL?
I can check if that is the case...
@@ -2415,6 +2415,10 @@ static void ieee80211_destroy_assoc_data(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
ieee80211_vif_release_channel(sdata);
}
+ if (put_bss)
+ cfg80211_put_bss(sdata->local->hw.wiphy, assoc_data->bss);
+
+
just one blank line
+ /** bss will be passed back to calling code, and that code must
+ * deal with properly putting the reference.
+ */
/** is for kernel-doc only
return RX_MGMT_CFG80211_RX_ASSOC;
You're working on some pretty old code here ... If you want this to be
in stable the patch really needs to be smaller, I think. And for
mac80211-next this can't apply.
I'm working on 3.9.6. When I get the problems fixed here, I can help
port this to whatever is the upstream kernel.
I'm not certain this is worth bothering with for stable anyway.
It seems the leaks are not too bad in general use cases,
and piddling around with code this tricky code could
introduce worse bugs that we may not immediately notice.
Thanks,
Ben
johannes
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
