On 10/18/18 3:19 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 11-10-18 20:53:34, John Hubbard wrote: >> On 10/11/18 6:23 PM, John Hubbard wrote: >>> On 10/11/18 6:20 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:49:29AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: [...] > Well, put_page() cannot assert page is not dma-pinned as someone can still > to get_page(), put_page() on dma-pinned page and that must not barf. But > put_page() could assert that if the page is pinned, refcount is >= > pincount. That will detect leaked pin references relatively quickly. > That assertion is definitely a life saver. I've been attempting a combination of finishing up more call site conversions, and runtime testing, and this lights up the missing conversions pretty nicely. As I mentioned in another thread just now, I'll send out an updated RFC this week, so that people can look through it well before the LPC (next week). thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
