mbox series

[RESEND,net,v4,0/4] ax25: Fix issues of ax25_dev and net_device

Message ID cover.1715062582.git.duoming@zju.edu.cn (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series ax25: Fix issues of ax25_dev and net_device | expand

Message

Duoming Zhou May 7, 2024, 6:21 a.m. UTC 
The first patch uses kernel universal linked list to implement
ax25_dev_list, which makes the operation of the list easier.
The second and third patch fix reference count leak issues of
the object "ax25_dev" and "net_device". The last patch uses
ax25_dev_put() to replace kfree() in ax25_dev_free().

You can see the former discussion in the following link:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240501060218.32898-1-duoming@zju.edu.cn/

Duoming Zhou (4):
  ax25: Use kernel universal linked list to implement ax25_dev_list
  ax25: Fix reference count leak issues of ax25_dev
  ax25: Fix reference count leak issues of net_device
  ax25: Change kfree() in ax25_dev_free() to ax25_dev_put()

 include/net/ax25.h  |  4 ++--
 net/ax25/ax25_dev.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)

Comments

Markus Elfring May 7, 2024, 7:30 a.m. UTC | #1 
…
> You can see the former discussion in the following link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240501060218.32898-1-duoming@zju.edu.cn/
…

Does this change approach represent another subsequent patch version
instead of a “RESEND”?

How do you think about to improve patch changelogs accordingly?

Regards,
Markus
Duoming Zhou May 7, 2024, 7:48 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 09:30:16 +0200 Markus Elfring wrote:
> Does this change approach represent another subsequent patch version
> instead of a “RESEND”?
> 
> How do you think about to improve patch changelogs accordingly?

Thank you for your reply and suggestions, I have already sent the v5:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=851052

Best regards,
Duoming Zhou