2017-04-08 16:14 GMT+02:00 Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>:
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:05:48 +0300
> Nikolay Aleksandrov <niko...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/17 16:49, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:30:42AM -0400, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:41:58 +0300
>> >> <ido...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> static void br_dev_free(struct net_device *dev)
>> >>> {
>> >>> - struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev);
>> >>> -
>> >>> - free_percpu(br->stats);
>> >>> free_netdev(dev);
>> >>> }
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Since the only thing left is free_netdev, you can now just set
>> >> dev->destructor
>> >> to be free_netdev.
>> >
>> > Fine.
>> >
>> > Beside stylistic issues, I would appreciate comments on how this should
>> > be handled. Are we reverting the patch in the Fixes line or applying
>> > this patchset?
>> >
>> > I prefer the first option. Then after net is merged into net-next I can
>> > re-post this patchset with the requested changes.
>> >
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>
> If this fixes the issue, then the one fix should go to stable, net and
> net-next.
> There is no good reason to have two versions.
>
+1
