On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 17:50 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > Yes, iommu_talbe's life time equals to PE lifetime, so when releasing a PE we > > need to release the iommu table. Currently, there is one function to release > > the iommu table, iommu_free_table() which takes a pointer of the iommu_table > > and release it. > > > > If the iommu table in PE is just a part of PE, it will have some problem to > > release it with iommu_free_table(). That's why I make it a pointer in PE > > structure. > > So you are saying that you want to release PE by one kfree() and release > iommu_table by another kfree (embedded into iommu_free_table()). For me > that means that PE and iommu_table have different lifetime. > > And I cannot find the exact place in this patchset where you call > iommu_free_table(), what do I miss? He has a point though... iommu_free_table() does a whole bunch of things in addition to kfree at the end. This is a discrepancy in the iommu.c code, we don't allocate the table, it's allocated by our callers, but we do free it in iommu_free_table(). My gut feeling is that we should fix that in the core by moving the kfree() out of iommu_free_table() and back into vio.c and pseries/iommu.c, the only two callers, otherwise we can't wrap the table structure inside another object if we are going to ever free it. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
