5 Jan
2016
5 Jan
'16
1:50 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 02:31:14AM +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 02:17:47PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
@@ -278,8 +258,8 @@ static void batadv_neigh_node_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu) neigh_node->addr); if (hardif_neigh) { /* batadv_hardif_neigh_get() increases refcount too */
batadv_hardif_neigh_free_now(hardif_neigh);batadv_hardif_neigh_free_now(hardif_neigh);
batadv_hardif_neigh_free_ref(hardif_neigh);batadv_hardif_neigh_free_ref(hardif_neigh);Hm, this trades one bug for an intermediate one, a nested call-rcu. Swapping this patch with patch number 9 to avoid this? (tried that an the diffs seem cleaner to me after swapping; or am I missing something?)
Actually, forget about that. Just noticed, one way or another there will be one intermediate bug. Don't see another way for that right now either.