On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 10:13 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 03:54:30PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > Em Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:39:19PM +0300, Eduard Zingerman escreveu:
> > > On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 10:47 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > Em Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 09:08:51PM +0300, Eduard Zingerman escreveu:
> > > > > On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 15:04 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > > > Em Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 04:52:40PM +0300, Eduard Zingerman escreveu:
> > > > > > > Right, you are correct.
> > > > > > > The 'structures__tree = RB_ROOT' part is still necessary, though.
> > > > > > > If you are ok with overall structure of the patch I can resend it w/o bzero().
> > > >
> > > > > > Humm, so basically this boils down to the following patch?
> > > >
> > > > > > +++ b/pahole.c
> > > > > > @@ -674,7 +674,12 @@ static void print_ordered_classes(void)
> > > > > > __print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree);
> > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > struct rb_root resorted = RB_ROOT;
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > +#ifdef DEBUG_CHECK_LEAKS
> > > > > > + // We'll delete structures from structures__tree, since we're
> > > > > > + // adding them to ther resorted list, better not keep
> > > > > > + // references there.
> > > > > > + structures__tree = RB_ROOT;
> > > > > > +#endif
> > > >
> > > > > But __structures__delete iterates over structures__tree,
> > > > > so it won't delete anything if code like this, right?
> > > >
> > > > > > resort_classes(&resorted, &structures__list);
> > > > > > __print_ordered_classes(&resorted);
> > > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I tried to be minimalistic, my version avoids the crash, but
> > > > defeats the DEBUG_CHECK_LEAKS purpose :-\
> > > >
> > > > How about:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/pahole.c b/pahole.c
> > > > index 6fc4ed6a721b97ab..e843999fde2a8a37 100644
> > > > --- a/pahole.c
> > > > +++ b/pahole.c
> > > > @@ -673,10 +673,10 @@ static void print_ordered_classes(void)
> > > > if (!need_resort) {
> > > > __print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree);
> > > > } else {
> > > > - struct rb_root resorted = RB_ROOT;
> > > > + structures__tree = RB_ROOT;
> > > >
> > > > - resort_classes(&resorted, &structures__list);
> > > > - __print_ordered_classes(&resorted);
> > > > + resort_classes(&structures__tree, &structures__list);
> > > > + __print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > That would work, but I still think that there is no need to replicate call
>
> I'm going thru the pile of stuff from before my vacations, can I take
> the above as an Acked-by in addition to your Reported-by?
Hi Arnaldo,
Sure, no problem.
>
> - Arnaldo
>
> > > to __print_ordered_classes, as long as the same list is passed as an argument,
> > > e.g.:
> > >
> > > @@ -670,14 +671,11 @@ static void resort_classes(struct rb_root *resorted, struct list_head *head)
> > >
> > > static void print_ordered_classes(void)
> > > {
> > > - if (!need_resort) {
> > > - __print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree);
> > > - } else {
> > > - struct rb_root resorted = RB_ROOT;
> > > -
> > > - resort_classes(&resorted, &structures__list);
> > > - __print_ordered_classes(&resorted);
> > > + if (need_resort) {
> > > + structures__tree = RB_ROOT;
> > > + resort_classes(&structures__tree, &structures__list);
> > > }
> > > + __print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree);
> > > }
> >
> > Right, that can be done as a follow up patch, further simplifying the
> > code.
> >
> > I'm just trying to have each patch as small as possible.
