On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 09:38:27 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > > @@ -285,7 +285,8 @@ static int create_handle_cache(struct zs_pool *pool)
> > >
> > > static void destroy_handle_cache(struct zs_pool *pool)
> > > {
> > > - kmem_cache_destroy(pool->handle_cachep);
> > > + if (pool->handle_cachep)
> > > + kmem_cache_destroy(pool->handle_cachep);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static unsigned long alloc_handle(struct zs_pool *pool)
> >
> > I'll apply this, but... from a bit of grepping I'm estimating that we
> > have approximately 200 instances of
> >
> > if (foo)
> > kmem_cache_destroy(foo);
> >
> > so obviously kmem_cache_destroy() should be doing the check.
>
> Hello, Andrew.
>
> I'm not sure if doing the check in kmem_cache_destroy() is better.
Of course it's better - we have *hundreds* of sites doing something
which could be done at a single site. Where's the advantage in that?
> My quick grep for other pool based allocators(ex. mempool, zpool) also
> says that they don't check whether passed pool pointer is NULL or not
> in destroy function.
Maybe some of those should be converted as well.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>