On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 4/13/2017 5:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> I do see that you change the deallocation in patch [5/5], but I think
>> the deallocation change should be in the same patch as the allocation
>> change. Otherwise I think we have a use-after-free p
On 4/13/2017 5:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I do see that you change the deallocation in patch [5/5], but I think
> the deallocation change should be in the same patch as the allocation
> change. Otherwise I think we have a use-after-free problem in this
> sequence:
Sure, I'll reorder. As you ca
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:48:00PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Hi Sinan,
>
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 12:55:49AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > For bridges, have pcie_aspm_init_link_state() allocate a link_state,
> > regardless of whether it currently has any children.
> >
> > pcie_aspm_init_link_
Hi Sinan,
On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 12:55:49AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> For bridges, have pcie_aspm_init_link_state() allocate a link_state,
> regardless of whether it currently has any children.
>
> pcie_aspm_init_link_state(): Called for bridges (upstream end of
> link) after all children have
4 matches
Mail list logo