On 19.03.2023 23:59, Andi Shyti wrote:
Hi Andrzej,
[...]
diff --git a/lib/ref_tracker.c b/lib/ref_tracker.c
index dc7b14aa3431e2..5e9f90bbf771b0 100644
--- a/lib/ref_tracker.c
+++ b/lib/ref_tracker.c
@@ -14,6 +14,38 @@ struct ref_tracker {
depot_stack_handle_t free_stack_handle;
};
+void __ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir,
+ unsigned int display_limit)
can we call this ref_tracker_dir_print_locked() instead of using
the '__'?
OK, 'locked' convention looks better.
Regards
Andrzej
+{
+ struct ref_tracker *tracker;
+ unsigned int i = 0;
+
+ lockdep_assert_held(&dir->lock);
+
+ list_for_each_entry(tracker, &dir->list, head) {
+ if (i < display_limit) {
+ pr_err("leaked reference.\n");
+ if (tracker->alloc_stack_handle)
+ stack_depot_print(tracker->alloc_stack_handle);
+ i++;
+ } else {
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__ref_tracker_dir_print);
+
+void ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir,
+ unsigned int display_limit)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&dir->lock, flags);
+ __ref_tracker_dir_print(dir, display_limit);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dir->lock, flags);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(ref_tracker_dir_print);
+
void ref_tracker_dir_exit(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir)
{
struct ref_tracker *tracker, *n;
@@ -27,13 +59,13 @@ void ref_tracker_dir_exit(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir)
kfree(tracker);
dir->quarantine_avail++;
}
- list_for_each_entry_safe(tracker, n, &dir->list, head) {
- pr_err("leaked reference.\n");
- if (tracker->alloc_stack_handle)
- stack_depot_print(tracker->alloc_stack_handle);
+ if (!list_empty(&dir->list)) {
+ __ref_tracker_dir_print(dir, 16);
leak = true;
- list_del(&tracker->head);
- kfree(tracker);
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(tracker, n, &dir->list, head) {
+ list_del(&tracker->head);
+ kfree(tracker);
+ }
Just thinking whether this should go on a different patch, but I
don't have a strong opinion.
Looks good!
Andi