Re: DEFINE_IDA causing memory leaks? (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] virtio: fix memory leak of virtio ida cache layers)

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, James.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:58:29AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> The argument is that we shouldn't have to explicitly destroy a
> statically initialized object, so 
> 
> DEFINE_IDA(someida);
> 
> Should just work without having to explicitly do
> 
> ida_destory(someida);
> 
> somewhere in the exit code.  It's about usage patterns.  Michael's
> argument is that if we can't follow the no destructor pattern for
> DEFINE_IDA() then we shouldn't have it at all, because it's confusing
> kernel design patterns.  The pattern we would have would be
> 
> struct ida someida:
> 
> ida_init(&someida);
> 
> ...
> 
> ida_destroy(&someida);
> 
> so the object explicitly has a constructor matched to a destructor.

Yeah, I get that.  I'm just not convinced that this matters enough
especially if we can get debugobj/ksan/whatever trip on it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/