On 05/24/12 09:39, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:19:12AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
>> 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?
I don't have good one but here are some ideas:
a) Do bio_endio() rather than bio_put() in blk_rq_unprep_clone()
and let bi_end_io reap additional data.
It looks ugly.
b) Separate the constructor from blk_rq_prep_clone().
dm has to do rq_for_each_bio loop again for constructor.
Possible performance impact.
c) Open code blk_rq_prep/unprep_clone() in dm.
It exposes unnecessary block-internals to dm.
d) Pass destructor function to blk_rq_prep/unprep_clone()
for them to callback.
Umm, is "d)" better?
--
Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
