On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 01:25 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:23:32AM +0200, Krzysztof B??aszkowski wrote: > > I think that there are no "kfree(pfp); kfree(sfp); return 0;" in > > vxfs_read_fshead() still. Are pfp and sfp needed anywhere ? I am sure > > they are not so there is a memory leak without these kfrees every mount. > > > > I am not sure absolutely of that read_fshead() is missing these kfrees > > because I have seen just these diffs, anyway I did not notice "+kfree". > > The frees are still missing. Do you want to send me a patch for those? I see. Don't hesitate to add them, I was thinking that creating a special patch because of these just two kfree()s is just too much formal work. > > > needles to say that I prefer to have limited scope of visibility of > > inode_cachep to the inode.c only. > > In my tree the visibility is in vxfs_super.c only. Given that the > alloc/destroy methods are super operations that seems to fit better > as they can have local scope, too. I see. We differ in point of views. I presumed that it is more consistent to have everything regarding inodes creation (getting)/destroying, etc in the inode.c. Anyway this is just pure academic debate, we could argue on anything else (weather, politics and politicians - hot topic especially in Poland) as well. You decide. You enjoy more your approach - good enough. -- Krzysztof Blaszkowski -- 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
