From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8D0F4B5CA2; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:17:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790003861; cv=none; b=D0gqQcvfrJDpPLzOsVq/3Cn8ang1RmNRW71q2AgEgyRrFY9e2iElf+JwigMzSphrG20qmn1kxOpiZooxtAlv/Pm9bi9dY4bBTLvObXm9+tQTYfUrWp9STsv5Q7+6P18nodA+tQVcoDpr6jryqmzgujmng2MHwgFV2mUonW0z+q0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790003861; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oO4Q4vKG+lsS0mYrQN/KPkiOEmGda5hzCFp19jIW3S8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=maOFm97LinDEhUD9uwQjfrA8j2YjeFG5F7/7GhEb/T9S/PMfPb1KHd76MgUx6Q6VNDZp/QyKbJkFXyZjIYbm5az4cG5WDyOiJG5wxWeJVCxtXDK5tze/3iQe1a9noD1DPApDj1wWVgR5zX/7pymq8v5mnlR4Qvg72db7a/s7aIo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ByM/Cqvv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ByM/Cqvv" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C34DD1F000FF; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:17:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790003859; bh=eFebAGvl97gWvUUihD7DJR70n3PAhvkIbV5S28OCT1c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=ByM/Cqvv6ANjlZ7mKRhVKjWXseHhq+lPz458Z5tfopzRhtTsdKCRqYXzRPGOhLtoC 8KiW3EQEOIaSj9MhiXqNL+0F6C9Ssi1WdaFWQJBnaWGr5qaMRp3eO2GkewN6zaHAFR w9LZhuh9u+LzmQyCqJ0t3EG1kmVh+Esmw8vucFx5l/1c6VDaSh0lFQm+cUfvUJ6o3G 9noNaJi2GQNmm7DviW23MMsoeIetBkGs3dwKj3IGuai+8hDQb9QUmskIAPaSTrHana sJVp/fWuc2Lf4Bn87ISn4XaJPvQMKQZ9a6CcEZnoR+wnTDE6HLrb5y0OcnoHwhX37a YZZfCgu1YlEjA== Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 17:17:36 +0200 From: krzk@kernel.org To: Guangshuo Li Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , stable@vger.kernel.org, James Bottomley , Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: zorro7xx: put SCSI host on remove Message-ID: References: <20260918180201.3624568-1-lgs201920130244@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260918180201.3624568-1-lgs201920130244@gmail.com> On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:02:01 +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote: > zorro7xx_init_one() obtains a SCSI host through NCR_700_detect(). The > probe failure path drops the host reference with scsi_host_put(), but > the normal remove path does not perform the corresponding cleanup. > > As a result, the SCSI host reference remains allocated after the > device is removed. > > Call scsi_host_put() after all users of the SCSI host have been torn > down to release the reference acquired during probe. > > This issue was found by manual code inspection. > > Fixes: 45804fbb00ee ("[SCSI] 53c700: Amiga Zorro NCR53c710 SCSI") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li > --- > drivers/scsi/zorro7xx.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was AI generated and most likely not tested. More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue. Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set. Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite worrying. This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner, like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down. Considering all this is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this should be considered for review. Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per subsystem, how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not do if this was posted in a good faith. Best regards, Krzysztof