Hin-Tak Leung <htl10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Saturday, 24 July 2021, 19:35:12 BST, Salah Triki <salah.triki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Replace udev with usb_get_dev() in order to make code cleaner. > >> Signed-off-by: Salah Triki <salah.triki@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl818x/rtl8187/dev.c | 4 +--- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl818x/rtl8187/dev.c > b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl818x/rtl8187/dev.c >> index eb68b2d3caa1..30bb3c2b8407 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl818x/rtl8187/dev.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl818x/rtl8187/dev.c >> @@ -1455,9 +1455,7 @@ static int rtl8187_probe(struct usb_interface *intf, > >> SET_IEEE80211_DEV(dev, &intf->dev); >> usb_set_intfdata(intf, dev); >> - priv->udev = udev; >> - >> - usb_get_dev(udev); >> + priv->udev = usb_get_dev(udev); > >> skb_queue_head_init(&priv->rx_queue); > >> -- >> 2.25.1 > > It is not cleaner - the change is not functionally equivalent. Before > the change, the reference count is increased after the assignment; and > after the change, before the assignment. So my question is, does the > reference count increasing a little earlier matters? What can go wrong > between very short time where the reference count increases, and > priv->udev not yet assigned? I think there might be a race condition > where the probbe function is called very shortly twice. Especially if > the time of running the reference count function is non-trivial. > > Larry, what do you think? BTW, please don't use HTML in emails. Our lists drop all HTML mail (and for a good reason). -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
