On 3/19/2024 10:15 AM, Breno Leitao wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 09:05:24AM -0700, Jeff Johnson wrote: >> On 3/19/2024 3:47 AM, Breno Leitao wrote: >>> @@ -3687,6 +3690,8 @@ struct ath10k *ath10k_core_create(size_t priv_size, struct device *dev, >>> >>> err_free_coredump: >>> ath10k_coredump_destroy(ar); >>> +err_free_netdev: >>> + free_netdev(ar->napi_dev); >>> err_free_tx_complete: >>> destroy_workqueue(ar->workqueue_tx_complete); >>> err_free_aux_wq: >>> @@ -3708,6 +3713,7 @@ void ath10k_core_destroy(struct ath10k *ar) >>> >>> destroy_workqueue(ar->workqueue_tx_complete); >>> >>> + free_netdev(ar->napi_dev); >>> ath10k_debug_destroy(ar); >>> ath10k_coredump_destroy(ar); >>> ath10k_htt_tx_destroy(&ar->htt); >> >> looks like there is a pre-existing issue that the order of operations in >> _destroy() doesn't match the order of operations in the _create() error path. > > Right. I found it weird as well. Basically "ath10k_coredump" and > "ath10k_debug" operations are swapped between ath10k_core_create() and > ath10k_core_destroy(). > > If you wish, I can submit a patch ordering it properly. Don't bother. I'll queue that up to fix separately myself /jeff
