20 Nov
2010
20 Nov
'10
8:04 p.m.
On Saturday 20 November 2010 19:27:01 Linus Lüssing wrote:
I guess you meant "kref_put(&neigh_node_tmp,... instead of neigh_node (without tmp) here, as neigh_node_tmp won't be used anymore, not neigh_node, right? Otherwise it also does not seem to make sense to first increase the refcount and then decreasing it right again after the additional check.
Yes, you are right. I'll fix that.
Thanks, Marek