[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150917151026.GB7205@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:10:26 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, open-iscsi@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: DEFINE_IDA causing memory leaks? (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] virtio:
fix memory leak of virtio ida cache layers)
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 07:15:44AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> I don't understand why you'd want to forbid DEFINE_IDA ... all it does
I guess to require the use of explicit init / creation so that it's
clear the data structure needs to be destroyed?
> is pre-initialise a usually static ida structure. The initialised
> structure will have a NULL bitmap cache that's allocated in the first
> ida_pre_get() ... that all seems to work as expected and no different
> from a dynamically allocated struct ida. Or are you thinking because
> ida_destory() doesn't set bitmap to NULL, it damages the reuse? In
> which case I'm not sure there's much benefit to making it reusable, but
> I suppose we could by adding a memset into ida_destroy().
I don't know. Data structures which do lazy anything would likely
need explicit destruction and I'm not sure we'd wanna ban static
initialization for all such cases. Seems like an unnecessary
restriction.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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