On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:59 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 16:33:36)
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:55:19PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:06)
> > > > +void string_stream_clear(struct string_stream *stream)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct string_stream_fragment *frag_container, *frag_container_safe;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock(&stream->lock);
> > > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(frag_container,
> > > > + frag_container_safe,
> > > > + &stream->fragments,
> > > > + node) {
> > > > + list_del(&frag_container->node);
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we free the allocation here? Otherwise, if some test is going
> > > to add, add, clear, add, it's going to leak until the test is over?
> >
> > So basically this means I should add a kunit_kfree and
> > kunit_resource_destroy (respective equivalents to devm_kfree, and
> > devres_destroy) and use kunit_kfree here?
> >
>
> Yes, or drop the API entirely? Does anything need this functionality?
Drop the kunit_resource API? I would strongly prefer not to.
string_stream uses it; the expectation stuff uses it via string
stream; some of the tests in this patchset allocate memory as part of
the test setup that uses it. The intention is that we would provide a
kunit_res_* version of many (hopefully eventually most) common
resources required by tests and it would be used in the same way that
the devm_* stuff is.
Nevertheless, I am fine adding the kunit_resource_destroy, etc. I just
wanted to make sure I understood what you were asking.
