Message ID | 05ae3c2fdd2db1f6a2fd3cd900164667e615f4f8.1301711868.git.lucian.grijincu@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | Deferred, archived |
Delegated to: | David Miller |
Headers | show |
From: Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lucian.grijincu@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 04:53:15 +0200 > ctl_table_headers registered with register_net_sysctl_table should > have been unregistered with the equivalent unregister_net_sysctl_table > > Signed-off-by: Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lucian.grijincu@gmail.com> Oops, hmmm... Can this actually cause any real problems currently? If so I'd like to toss this specific patch into net-2.6 Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:52 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > Oops, hmmm... Can this actually cause any real problems currently? > > If so I'd like to toss this specific patch into net-2.6 Nope: void unregister_net_sysctl_table(struct ctl_table_header *header) { unregister_sysctl_table(header); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_net_sysctl_table); But I thought that in the future, if something special needs to be done for unregister_net_sysctl_table, it would be better to have these consistent. I'll do a check on all the tree to see if there are other cases. Another approach would be to remove unregister_net_sysctl_table, as it does nothing different of unregister_sysctl_table and let our future selves deal with the problem. Can you tell me what you'd like?
From: Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lucian.grijincu@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 22:04:53 +0200 > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:52 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >> Oops, hmmm... Can this actually cause any real problems currently? >> >> If so I'd like to toss this specific patch into net-2.6 > > > Nope: > > void unregister_net_sysctl_table(struct ctl_table_header *header) > { > unregister_sysctl_table(header); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_net_sysctl_table); Ok, that's good. > But I thought that in the future, if something special needs to be > done for unregister_net_sysctl_table, it would be better to have these > consistent. I'll do a check on all the tree to see if there are other > cases. > > Another approach would be to remove unregister_net_sysctl_table, as it > does nothing different of unregister_sysctl_table and let our future > selves deal with the problem. > > Can you tell me what you'd like? I think the thing to do is to keep this patch as it is, and only apply it along with this cookie patch series, for -next. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c index 5345b0b..cd9ca08 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c +++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c @@ -1680,7 +1680,7 @@ static void __devinet_sysctl_unregister(struct ipv4_devconf *cnf) return; cnf->sysctl = NULL; - unregister_sysctl_table(t->sysctl_header); + unregister_net_sysctl_table(t->sysctl_header); kfree(t->dev_name); kfree(t); } diff --git a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c index 3daaf3c..b1654a4 100644 --- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c +++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c @@ -4537,7 +4537,7 @@ static void __addrconf_sysctl_unregister(struct ipv6_devconf *p) t = p->sysctl; p->sysctl = NULL; - unregister_sysctl_table(t->sysctl_header); + unregister_net_sysctl_table(t->sysctl_header); kfree(t->dev_name); kfree(t); }
ctl_table_headers registered with register_net_sysctl_table should have been unregistered with the equivalent unregister_net_sysctl_table Signed-off-by: Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lucian.grijincu@gmail.com> --- net/ipv4/devinet.c | 2 +- net/ipv6/addrconf.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)