Re: [PATCH 04/20] storage: Free hash table entries when freeing storage

[Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com>]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 09:21:30AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 10/21/26 6:50 AM, Dmitry Ilvokhin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 10:56:17AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > Free allocated hash table entries when freeing storage structures in
> > > storage.c to prevent memory leaks during storage teardown.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
> > > ---
> > >   storage.c | 10 ++++++++--
> > >   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/storage.c b/storage.c
> > > index 6fc6e3d7085f..160d424ee1f6 100644
> > > --- a/storage.c
> > > +++ b/storage.c
> > > @@ -159,12 +159,18 @@ static void vrfy_storage(struct storage_hash_list **listp)
> > >   void free_storage(void)
> > >   {
> > > +	struct storage_hash_list *all = NULL;
> > >   	int i;
> > >   	for (i = 0; i < MAX_STORAGE_HASH; i++) {
> > > -		vrfy_storage(storage_hash_table + i);
> > > +		struct storage_hash *entry;
> > > +		FOR_EACH_PTR(storage_hash_table[i], entry) {
> > > +			add_ptr_list(&all, entry);
> > > +		} END_FOR_EACH_PTR(entry);
> > >   		free_ptr_list(storage_hash_table + i);
> > >   	}
> > > +	vrfy_storage(&all);
> > > +	free_ptr_list(&all);
> > >   }
> > 
> > This seems like a behaviour change (a correct one, as far as I can
> > tell), that is not mentioned in the changelog. Before verification was
> > done for each bucket independently and could miss conflicts, while now
> > verification is done globally.
> > 
> > Does it worth to split this hunk it is own commit with the proper
> > description?
> 
> Does replacing the above patch with the two patches below address your
> feedback?
> 

Thanks, Bart. This is exactly what I had in mind.

Feel free to add for both patches:

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com>