Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> writes: >> Personally, I would do things differently, I am thinking: adding the >> taprio instance earlier to the list in taprio_init(), and keeping >> taprio_destroy() the way it is now. But take this more as a suggestion >> :-) >> > > While I don't strongly oppose your proposal (keep the list removal > unconditional, but match it better in placement to the list addition), > I think it's rather fragile and I do see this bug recurring in the > future. Anyway if you want to keep it "simpler" I can respin it like > that. >
I am thinking that keeping things "simpler" has the advantage of making any bugs really loud and hopefully easier to catch. Cheers, -- Vinicius
