On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:19:12AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05/24/12 09:02, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > @@ -1438,15 +1439,6 @@ void dm_dispatch_request(struct request *rq)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dm_dispatch_request);
> >
> > -static void dm_rq_bio_destructor(struct bio *bio)
> > -{
> > - struct dm_rq_clone_bio_info *info = bio->bi_private;
> > - struct mapped_device *md = info->tio->md;
> > -
> > - free_bio_info(info);
> > - bio_free(bio, md->bs);
> > -}
> > -
> > static int dm_rq_bio_constructor(struct bio *bio, struct bio *bio_orig,
> > void *data)
> > {
> > @@ -1461,7 +1453,6 @@ static int dm_rq_bio_constructor(struct bio *bio, struct bio *bio_orig,
> > info->tio = tio;
> > bio->bi_end_io = end_clone_bio;
> > bio->bi_private = info;
> > - bio->bi_destructor = dm_rq_bio_destructor;
>
> 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?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
