On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 04:11:27AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:38:03PM +0800, oulijun wrote: > > 在 2018/11/30 12:42, Jason Gunthorpe 写道: > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:04:07AM +0800, oulijun wrote: > > >> 在 2018/11/30 8:06, Jason Gunthorpe 写道: > > >>> Is a call to xa_destroy missing? > > >>> > > >>> Jason > > >> Hi, Jason > > >> It uses xarray instead radix tree. the orign code as follows: > > >> spin_lock_int(&srq_table->lock); > > >> INIT_RADIX_TREE(&srq_table->tree, GFP_ATOMIC); > > >> > > >> So, we should use xa_init instead of it. I think that it should not use xa_destroy. > > > Well, radix tree didn't have a destroy, it was considered destroyed > > > when empty, while xarray does have a destroy. Seems reasonable to call > > > it even if you know the xarray is empty? Matthew? > > > > > > Jason > > > > > Hi, Matthew > > I think that it is right for jason's views. I check the all patches from the address from jason again. all places > > is not call the xa_destroy. what is your opinion? > > There's no need to call xa_destroy() if you know the XArray is empty. > It's just a convenience function. Okay then, series applied to for-next thanks Jason
