On 3/21/2024 7:28 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 08:12:46 -0700 Jeff Johnson wrote: >> NAK this based upon the ath11k patch results. > > The ath11 patch is much more complex, I'd wager this one is fine. > >> As suggested there we should just use kmalloc/kfree to match the existing logic. > > Please no. There is no magic here. alloc + free must match whether > you're using magic object alloc wrapper (alloc_netdev()) or straight > up kzalloc(). Based upon the ath11k patch there must be something going on with alloc_netdev()/free_netdev() that doesn't occur when these aren't used. So I'm just suggesting that instead we use kmalloc() and kfree(), which are matching functions, and which, like the existing code, are not subject to whatever is happening in alloc_netdev()/free_netdev(). I don't understand your objection. /jeff
