[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a781481a0705061246y10568c25h8d82233dbc43ce5c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 01:16:42 +0530
From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To: "Bert Wesarg" <wesarg@...ormatik.uni-halle.de>
Cc: clameter@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
dgc@....com, "Eric Dumazet" <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
"Mel Gorman" <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] SLUB: slab_ops instead of constructors / destructors
On 5/7/07, Bert Wesarg <wesarg@...ormatik.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> clameter@....com wrote:
> > + if (ctor || dtor) {
> > + so = kzalloc(sizeof(struct slab_ops), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + so->ctor = ctor;
> > + so->dtor = dtor;
> > + }
> > + return __kmem_cache_create(s, size, align, flags, so);
> Is this a memory leak?
Yes, but see:
On 5/5/07, clameter@....com <clameter@....com> wrote:
> If constructor or destructor are specified then we will allocate a slab_ops
> structure and populate it with the values specified. Note that this will
> cause a memory leak if the slab is disposed of later. If you need disposable
> slabs then the new API must be used.
BTW:
> > + if (ctor || dtor) {
> > + so = kzalloc(sizeof(struct slab_ops), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + so->ctor = ctor;
It's also a potential oops, actually. kzalloc's return must be checked.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists