From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kent Overstreet Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 02/14] dm: kill dm_rq_bio_destructor Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:39:16 -0700 Message-ID: <20120524003915.GA27443@google.com> References: <1337817771-25038-1-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <1337817771-25038-3-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <4FBD7E80.4020005@ce.jp.nec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: device-mapper development , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org, yehuda-L5o5AL9CYN0tUFlbccrkMA@public.gmane.org, mpatocka-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, vgoyal-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, bharrosh-C4P08NqkoRlBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, sage-BnTBU8nroG7k1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org, agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, drbd-dev-cunTk1MwBs8qoQakbn7OcQ@public.gmane.org To: Jun'ichi Nomura Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FBD7E80.4020005-JhyGz2TFV9J8UrSeD/g0lQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:19:12AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/24/12 09:02, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > @@ -1438,15 +1439,6 @@ void dm_dispatch_request(struct request *rq) > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dm_dispatch_request); > > > > -static void dm_rq_bio_destructor(struct bio *bio) > > -{ > > - struct dm_rq_clone_bio_info *info = bio->bi_private; > > - struct mapped_device *md = info->tio->md; > > - > > - free_bio_info(info); > > - bio_free(bio, md->bs); > > -} > > - > > static int dm_rq_bio_constructor(struct bio *bio, struct bio *bio_orig, > > void *data) > > { > > @@ -1461,7 +1453,6 @@ static int dm_rq_bio_constructor(struct bio *bio, struct bio *bio_orig, > > info->tio = tio; > > bio->bi_end_io = end_clone_bio; > > bio->bi_private = info; > > - bio->bi_destructor = dm_rq_bio_destructor; > > The destructor may also be called from blk_rq_unprep_clone(), > which just puts bio. > So this patch will introduce a memory leak. Well, keeping around bi_destructor solely for that reason would be pretty lousy. Can you come up with a better solution?