[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150917180026.GB15447@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:00:26 -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, James.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:58:29AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> The argument is that we shouldn't have to explicitly destroy a
> statically initialized object, so
>
> DEFINE_IDA(someida);
>
> Should just work without having to explicitly do
>
> ida_destory(someida);
>
> somewhere in the exit code. It's about usage patterns. Michael's
> argument is that if we can't follow the no destructor pattern for
> DEFINE_IDA() then we shouldn't have it at all, because it's confusing
> kernel design patterns. The pattern we would have would be
>
> struct ida someida:
>
> ida_init(&someida);
>
> ...
>
> ida_destroy(&someida);
>
> so the object explicitly has a constructor matched to a destructor.
Yeah, I get that. I'm just not convinced that this matters enough
especially if we can get debugobj/ksan/whatever trip on it.
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