lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-22 01:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans