On 2020-04-13 22:15, Mike Christie wrote:
> @@ -537,8 +538,15 @@ void transport_deregister_session_configfs(struct se_session *se_sess)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(transport_deregister_session_configfs);
>
> +
A single blank line is probably sufficient here?
> void transport_free_session(struct se_session *se_sess)
> {
> + kobject_put(&se_sess->kobj);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(transport_free_session);
> +
> +void __target_free_session(struct se_session *se_sess)
> +{
> struct se_node_acl *se_nacl = se_sess->se_node_acl;
>
> /*
> @@ -582,7 +590,6 @@ void transport_free_session(struct se_session *se_sess)
> percpu_ref_exit(&se_sess->cmd_count);
> kmem_cache_free(se_sess_cache, se_sess);
> }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(transport_free_session);
Does this patch defer execution of the code inside
transport_free_session() from when transport_free_session() is called to
when the last reference to a session is dropped? Can that have
unintended side effects? How about keeping most of the code that occurs
in transport_free_session() in that function and only freeing the memory
associated with the session if the last reference is dropped?
Thanks,
Bart.
