> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> @@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ int phy_attach_direct(struct net_device *dev, struct
> phy_device *phydev,
> return -EIO;
> }
>
> - if (!try_module_get(d->driver->owner)) {
> + if (d->driver && !try_module_get(d->driver->owner)) {
> dev_err(&dev->dev, "failed to get the device driver module\n");
> return -EIO;
> }
> @@ -943,7 +943,7 @@ int phy_attach_direct(struct net_device *dev, struct
> phy_device *phydev,
> err = device_bind_driver(d);
>
> if (err)
> - goto error;
> + goto error_put_device;
> }
>
> if (phydev->attached_dev) {
> @@ -981,6 +981,7 @@ int phy_attach_direct(struct net_device *dev, struct
> phy_device *phydev,
>
> error:
> phy_detach(phydev);
> +error_put_device:
> put_device(d);
> module_put(d->driver->owner);
Can we get into problems here? Maybe we did not do a get?
> if (ndev_owner != bus->owner)
> @@ -1065,7 +1066,8 @@ void phy_detach(struct phy_device *phydev)
> bus = phydev->mdio.bus;
>
> put_device(&phydev->mdio.dev);
> - module_put(phydev->mdio.dev.driver->owner);
> + if (phydev->mdio.dev.driver)
> + module_put(phydev->mdio.dev.driver->owner);
Humm. By this point, havn't we assigned d->driver to genphy_driver?
So this decrements something we never incremented?
To me, it seems better to move the try_module_get() after assigning
genphy_driver if needed. We then don't have any special conditions.
Andrew
