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    [W:0.030 / U:30.784 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site