On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:19:12AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/24/12 09:02, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > @@ -1438,15 +1439,6 @@ void dm_dispatch_request(struct request *rq) > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dm_dispatch_request); > > > > -static void dm_rq_bio_destructor(struct bio *bio) > > -{ > > - struct dm_rq_clone_bio_info *info = bio->bi_private; > > - struct mapped_device *md = info->tio->md; > > - > > - free_bio_info(info); > > - bio_free(bio, md->bs); > > -} > > - > > static int dm_rq_bio_constructor(struct bio *bio, struct bio *bio_orig, > > void *data) > > { > > @@ -1461,7 +1453,6 @@ static int dm_rq_bio_constructor(struct bio *bio, struct bio *bio_orig, > > info->tio = tio; > > bio->bi_end_io = end_clone_bio; > > bio->bi_private = info; > > - bio->bi_destructor = dm_rq_bio_destructor; > > The destructor may also be called from blk_rq_unprep_clone(), > which just puts bio. > So this patch will introduce a memory leak. Well, keeping around bi_destructor solely for that reason would be pretty lousy. Can you come up with a better solution? -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel