Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chun...@linaro.org> writes: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Alexander Shishkin > <alexander.shish...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chun...@linaro.org> writes: >> >>> It would be broken if stm_data->sw_start isn't zero, because that >>> stp_master_free() get the 'master' with __stm_master()/stm_master(), >>> in which the masterID is the second input parameter minus >>> stm_data->sw_start. So freeing STM masters has to start from >>> stm_data->sw_start. >> >> No, it won't. stm_master_free() handles nonexistent masters correctly. >> It does make sense to shrink the loop in stm_unregister_device() to >> avoid going through the [0..sw_start) range, since stm_master() returns >> NULL for those, but not for the reasons given in this patch description. > > Let's assume sw_start = 64, sw_end = 79, sw_nmasters should be 16, if > the loop goes through [0..16), the existed masters will not be freed.
Ah yes, you're right, of course. I'll add this fix to the queue with a proper description. Thanks, -- Alex