search for: ida_destori

Hi, The following patches fix couple of memory leaks in the virtio and remoteproc cores when using these as modules, and going through a cycle of insmod and rmmod with at least a device registered with the corresponding cores in between. I ran into this on our downstream product kernels on both 3.14 and 4.1 based kernels, and should apply to the latest kernel as well. Patches can be picked up

Hi, The following patches fix couple of memory leaks in the virtio and remoteproc cores when using these as modules, and going through a cycle of insmod and rmmod with at least a device registered with the corresponding cores in between. I ran into this on our downstream product kernels on both 3.14 and 4.1 based kernels, and should apply to the latest kernel as well. Patches can be picked up

Hello, On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 07:15:44AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > I don't understand why you'd want to forbid DEFINE_IDA ... all it does I guess to require the use of explicit init / creation so that it's clear the data structure needs to be destroyed? > is pre-initialise a usually static ida structure. The initialised > structure will have a NULL bitmap cache

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.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 07:15:44AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 08:33 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:29:17PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote: > > > The virtio core uses a static ida named virtio_index_ida for > > > assigning index numbers to virtio devices during registration. > > > The ida core may allocate some