On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:58:21PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2/26/25 12:43 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Ignore this one, that was bogus. Trying to understand a crash in here. > > Just to wrap this up, it's the combining of table and cache that's the > issue. The table can get torn down and freed while nodes are still > alive - which is fine, but not with this change, as there's then no > way to sanely put the cached entry. Yes, the imu can outlive the table it came from, which means Pavel was right to suggest I not tied the cache to the table. Thanks for pointing this out.
