Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:19 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] mempool: drop unnecessary and incorrect BUG_ON() from mempool_destroy() |
| |
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:18:00 -0800 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> mempool_destroy() is a thin wrapper around free_pool(). The only > thing it adds is BUG_ON(pool->curr_nr != pool->min_nr). The intention > seems to be to enforce that all allocated elements are freed; however, > the BUG_ON() can't achieve that (it doesn't know anything about > objects above min_nr) and incorrect as mempool_resize() is allowed to > leave the pool extended but not filled. Furthermore, panicking is way > worse than any memory leak and there are better debug tools to track > memory leaks. > > Drop the BUG_ON() from mempool_destory() and as that leaves the > function identical to free_pool(), replace it. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Cc: stable@kernel.org
(that's stable@vger.kernel.org)
> --- > These patches are on top of "mempool: fix and document synchronization > and memory barrier usage" patch[1]. Both are fixes and it probably is > a good idea to forward to -stable.
I'm not sure that either of these are suitable for -stable. There's no demonstrated problem, nor even a likely theoretical one, is there?
If we do decide to backport, I don't think the -stable guys will want the large-but-nice comment-adding patch so both these patches would need to be reworked for -stable usage. The first patch does apply successfully to mainline. The second does not.
| |