On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 03:52:02PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 05:02:45PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>
> [..]
> > @@ -234,6 +234,13 @@ void bio_free(struct bio *bio, struct bio_set *bs)
> > {
> > void *p;
> >
> > + if (!bs) {
> > + if (bio_integrity(bio))
> > + bio_integrity_free(bio, fs_bio_set);
> > + kfree(bio);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
>
> Ok, this seems to be the code which will take care of freeing kmalloced
> bio. I think putting little comment about the explicit assumption is not
> a bad idea.
Yeah, it's changing the semantics of bio_free(). I'll document that.
> Somehow we need to integrate two patches so that we don't have memory leak
> in bisection and reading code becomes easier.
I don't think there's any memory leak issues with this patch... there
are various annoyances with the dm code, though.
> Also then what's the need of bio_reset() in previous patch. That seems to
> be independent from getting rid of pkt_bio_destructor(). I would think
> that keep we can split the patch and keep bio_reset() logic in a separate
> patch. In fact I am not even sure that for one driver we should introduce
> bio_reset() in generic block layer. So to me we should get rid of bio_reset()
> and let all the gory details remain in driver.
Well, it would be possible to kill bi_destructor without introducing
bio_reset() - but that'd mean the kill bi_destructor patch would have to
muck around in the pktcdvd code. IMO introducing bio_reset() makes the
rest of the patch series much cleaner.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
