On 3/24/2015 7:10 PM, Pavel Boldin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie at intel.com<mailto:huawei.xie at intel.com>> wrote: On 3/23/2015 8:54 PM, Pavel Boldin wrote: > Due to increased `struct file's reference counter subsequent call > to `filp_close' does not free the `struct file'. Prepend `fput' call > to decrease the reference counter. > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Boldin <pboldin at mirantis.com<mailto:pboldin at > mirantis.com>> > --- > lib/librte_vhost/eventfd_link/eventfd_link.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/eventfd_link/eventfd_link.c > b/lib/librte_vhost/eventfd_link/eventfd_link.c > index 7755dd6..62c45c8 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_vhost/eventfd_link/eventfd_link.c > +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/eventfd_link/eventfd_link.c > @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ eventfd_link_ioctl(struct file *f, unsigned int ioctl, > unsigned long arg) > * Release the existing eventfd in the source process > */ > spin_lock(&files->file_lock); > + fput(file); > filp_close(file, files); > fdt = files_fdtable(files); > fdt->fd[eventfd_copy.source_fd] = NULL; Acked-by Huawei Xie <huawei.xie at intel.com<mailto:huawei.xie at intel.com>> In future, we should remove the allocation of src eventfd, allocate a free fd from kernel, and install it with target fd. Well, I don't think this is correct, because this will put too much job for the kernel module making it a combiner. At the moment I propose to accept module refactoring patch to the upstream. After that the module can be reworked along with the application code. The reason is I can't work on DPDK since I have no hardware to test application at so I can't help with patch that touches application code. Pavel Pavel: I am not asking to do it right now but in future, and i agree we accept the refactoring patch now, so i ack the patch. Huawei
