speedtch usbatm.h,1.4,1.5 usbatm2.c,1.13,1.14
rkagan at mail.ru
Sat Feb 12 10:19:49 EST 2005
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 03:50:26PM +0100, matthieu castet wrote:
> >>If it doesn't go in, I think we at least should remove that bogus kfree
> >>in udsl_destroy_instance: a memleak is better than a probability of a
> >which bogus kfree do you mean? I see a kfree in udsl_destroy_instance,
> >but it looks fine to me...
> the kfree is done on data which is statically initialized by the driver,
> so the kfree is is bogus.
Not exactly: kfree is done on udsl_instance_data living within the
kmalloced speedtch_instance_data, which isn't kfreed at all in 2.6.10
speedtch. So I suspect removing it would just leave a memleak.
> But even if we remove the kfree, it won't solve the problem, since we
> can unload the driver and erase the instance data(loading an other
speedtch in 2.6.10 doesn't erase instance data in disconnect (yes it's a
bug but not fatal probably).
More information about the Usbatm