Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2022-02-18 17:08:41)
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Friday, 18 February 2022 17:03:01 CET Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2022-02-18 15:19:35)
> > > @@ -206,15 +229,19 @@ static struct pci_device *__igt_device_get_pci_device(int fd)
> > > igt_warn("Couldn't find PCI device %04x:%02x:%02x:%02x\n",
> > > pci_addr.domain, pci_addr.bus,
> > > pci_addr.device, pci_addr.function);
> > > - return NULL;
> > > + goto cleanup;
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (pci_device_probe(pci_dev)) {
> > > igt_warn("Couldn't probe PCI device\n");
> > > - return NULL;
> > > + goto cleanup;
> > > }
> > >
> > > return pci_dev;
> > > +
> > > +cleanup:
> > > + pci_system_cleanup();
> >
> > This is a global cleanup of libpciaccess iirc, such that if anyone else
> > was using the library they would be affected.
>
> Right, but shouldn't we also drop pci_system_init() from here and request
> users to manage initialization and cleanup of that data themselves? On each
> call pci_system_init() abandons existing data and overwrites a pointer to it
> with that of newly allocated memory, then tests calling
> igt_device_get_pci_device() multiple times are going to suffer from
> significant memory leaking.
Right, I thought it only inited once -- I just remember the issue with
calling pci_system_cleanup() while others were still using it.
Stick the call to init in an __attribute__((constructor)) or pthread_once.
-Chris
