On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 09:05:24AM -0700, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On 3/19/2024 3:47 AM, Breno Leitao wrote: > > @@ -3687,6 +3690,8 @@ struct ath10k *ath10k_core_create(size_t priv_size, > > struct device *dev, > > > > err_free_coredump: > > ath10k_coredump_destroy(ar); > > +err_free_netdev: > > + free_netdev(ar->napi_dev); > > err_free_tx_complete: > > destroy_workqueue(ar->workqueue_tx_complete); > > err_free_aux_wq: > > @@ -3708,6 +3713,7 @@ void ath10k_core_destroy(struct ath10k *ar) > > > > destroy_workqueue(ar->workqueue_tx_complete); > > > > + free_netdev(ar->napi_dev); > > ath10k_debug_destroy(ar); > > ath10k_coredump_destroy(ar); > > ath10k_htt_tx_destroy(&ar->htt); > > looks like there is a pre-existing issue that the order of operations in > _destroy() doesn't match the order of operations in the _create() error path.
Right. I found it weird as well. Basically "ath10k_coredump" and "ath10k_debug" operations are swapped between ath10k_core_create() and ath10k_core_destroy(). If you wish, I can submit a patch ordering it properly. > but the placement of your changes looks ok to me Right. It is done in-between the workqueues and the coredump/debug creation/destroy. Thanks for the review.
