Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:00:26 -0400 | From | Tejun Heo <> | 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
| |