Hi; could somebody who understands the block layer refcounting have a look at Coverity issues CID 1395870 and 1395871, please? In both cases, Coverity reports a use-after-free because it thinks that a sequence where a code path might (conditionally) end up calling blk_deref() twice could be freeing the memory in the first call and using it after. I'm not sure whether these are false positives because the refcounting has confused Coverity, or genuine issues where we have got refcounting logic wrong, so I don't know if we need a fix or if we should squash the coverity bug as a false-positive...
thanks -- PMM
