[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080429114425.ea0e2f62.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:44:25 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nadia.Derbey@...l.net
Cc: manfred@...orfullife.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de, Nadia.Derbey@...l.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Fix idr_remove()
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:33:05 +0200
Nadia.Derbey@...l.net wrote:
> [PATCH 01/10]
>
> This patch fixes idr_remove(): the return inside the loop makes us free only
> a single layer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
>
> ---
> lib/idr.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.25-mm1/lib/idr.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.25-mm1.orig/lib/idr.c 2008-04-25 15:29:00.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.25-mm1/lib/idr.c 2008-04-25 15:48:34.000000000 +0200
> @@ -385,8 +385,8 @@ void idr_remove(struct idr *idp, int id)
> while (idp->id_free_cnt >= IDR_FREE_MAX) {
> p = alloc_layer(idp);
> kmem_cache_free(idr_layer_cache, p);
> - return;
> }
> + return;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(idr_remove);
erk, ancient bug.
I _think_ the implications of this are that an idr tree will grow fatter
than it needs to be, but there is no permanent leak: idr_destroy() will
still free everything, yes?
And a consequence of the fix is that idr manipulations will now result in
more allocs and frees, but the amount of memory which a tree uses will be
less?
--
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