Sure. Thanks Anatoly, Please go ahead and submit V2.
Thanks Yipeng >-----Original Message----- >From: Burakov, Anatoly >Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2017 3:55 AM >To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.w...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org >Cc: Gobriel, Sameh <sameh.gobr...@intel.com> >Subject: Re: [PATCH] member: fix memory leak on error > >On 22-Dec-17 6:33 PM, Wang, Yipeng1 wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Burakov, Anatoly >>> Yep, i can see that now. Didn't think to look inside rte_member_free() >>> :/ However, you're creating a race condition there - you're unlocking a >>> tailq, and then locking (and unlocking) it again inside >>> rte_member_free() - it probably needs _thread_unsafe() functions that >>> you can call from behind the lock. >>> >>> -- >> >> Thank you Anatoly, >> >> I realize that rte_member_free does not do anything good here. As a fix, I >think the following should work. Is there any other concern? >> > >Yes, that should work. Table creation is the last step that can cause an >error, so if we're there, we already know that we couldn't have >allocated it, so there's no need to deallocate those, and simple >rte_free(setsum) should do. I'll submit a v2? > >-- >Thanks, >Anatoly
