On 02/28/2012 06:26 AM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 07:22:45PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> On 02/10/2012 05:10 PM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
>>> htc_packet and htc_packet->buf_start are separately allocated
>>> for endpoint 0. This is different for other endpoints where
>>> packets are allocated as skb where htc_packet is skb->head
>>> and they are freed properly. Free htc_packet and htc_packet->buf_start
>>> separatly for endpoint 0.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
>>> + /*
>>> + * packets in rx_bufq of endpoint 0 have originally
>>> + * been queued from target->free_ctrl_rxbuf where
>>> + * packet and packet->buf_start are allocated
>>> + * separately using kmalloc(). For other endpoint
>>> + * rx_bufq, it is allocated as skb where packet is
>>> + * skb->head. Take care of this difference while freeing
>>> + * the memory.
>>> + */
>>> + if (packet->endpoint == ENDPOINT_0) {
>>> + kfree(packet->buf_start);
>>> + kfree(packet);
>>> + } else {
>>> + dev_kfree_skb(packet->pkt_cntxt);
>>> + }
>>
>> I didn't look at the code, but my question would it be possible to use
>> skbs also with endpoint 0? That would be more consistent aproach than
>> testing for a particular endpoint.
>
> Yeah, using skbs for control buffer is the right thing, but for the time being
> we can have this fix in.
Ok, fair enough. Let's do it like this.
Kalle
--
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
