[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120524195202.GG27550@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:52:02 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com, neilb@...e.de,
drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, bharrosh@...asas.com,
mpatocka@...hat.com, sage@...dream.net, yehuda@...newdream.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/14] block: Kill bi_destructor
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 05:02:45PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
[..]
> @@ -234,6 +234,13 @@ void bio_free(struct bio *bio, struct bio_set *bs)
> {
> void *p;
>
> + if (!bs) {
> + if (bio_integrity(bio))
> + bio_integrity_free(bio, fs_bio_set);
> + kfree(bio);
> + return;
> + }
> +
Ok, this seems to be the code which will take care of freeing kmalloced
bio. I think putting little comment about the explicit assumption is not
a bad idea.
Somehow we need to integrate two patches so that we don't have memory leak
in bisection and reading code becomes easier.
Also then what's the need of bio_reset() in previous patch. That seems to
be independent from getting rid of pkt_bio_destructor(). I would think
that keep we can split the patch and keep bio_reset() logic in a separate
patch. In fact I am not even sure that for one driver we should introduce
bio_reset() in generic block layer. So to me we should get rid of bio_reset()
and let all the gory details remain in driver.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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