[PATCH] slab: add missing debug_check_no_locks_freed for kmem_cache_free

[PATCH] slab: add missing debug_check_no_locks_freed for kmem_cache_free

[Pekka J Enberg]

From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>

Add a missing debug_check_no_locks_freed() debug check for kmem_cache_free().

Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
---

 mm/slab.c |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: 2.6/mm/slab.c
===================================================================
--- 2.6.orig/mm/slab.c
+++ 2.6/mm/slab.c
@@ -3491,6 +3491,8 @@ static inline void __cache_free(struct k
 {
 	struct array_cache *ac = cpu_cache_get(cachep);
 
+	debug_check_no_locks_freed(objp, obj_size(cachep));
+
 	check_irq_off();
 	objp = cache_free_debugcheck(cachep, objp, __builtin_return_address(0));
 
@@ -3757,7 +3759,6 @@ void kfree(const void *objp)
 	local_irq_save(flags);
 	kfree_debugcheck(objp);
 	c = virt_to_cache(objp);
-	debug_check_no_locks_freed(objp, obj_size(c));
 	__cache_free(c, (void *)objp);
 	local_irq_restore(flags);
 }

Re: [PATCH] slab: add missing debug_check_no_locks_freed for kmem_cache_free

[Ingo Molnar]

* Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
> 
> Add a missing debug_check_no_locks_freed() debug check for 
> kmem_cache_free().

hm, i have a similar fix in -rt already, and i sent a patch for this:

 http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/18/104

have i missed some API variant?

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] slab: add missing debug_check_no_locks_freed for kmem_cache_free

[Pekka Enberg]

Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> > Add a missing debug_check_no_locks_freed() debug check for
> > kmem_cache_free().

On 1/2/07, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> hm, i have a similar fix in -rt already, and i sent a patch for this:
>
>  http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/18/104
>
> have i missed some API variant?

Oh, I missed that. I don't think it's in Linus' tree yet, though. Your
patch looks good but I prefer mine as it's better to have the check in
one place.