On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 09:38:27 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo....@lge.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > > @@ -285,7 +285,8 @@ static int create_handle_cache(struct zs_pool *pool)
> > >
> > > static void destroy_handle_cache(struct zs_pool *pool)
> > > {
> > > - kmem_cache_destroy(pool->handle_cachep);
> > > + if (pool->handle_cachep)
> > > + kmem_cache_destroy(pool->handle_cachep);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static unsigned long alloc_handle(struct zs_pool *pool)
> >
> > I'll apply this, but... from a bit of grepping I'm estimating that we
> > have approximately 200 instances of
> >
> > if (foo)
> > kmem_cache_destroy(foo);
> >
> > so obviously kmem_cache_destroy() should be doing the check.
>
> Hello, Andrew.
>
> I'm not sure if doing the check in kmem_cache_destroy() is better.
Of course it's better - we have *hundreds* of sites doing something
which could be done at a single site. Where's the advantage in that?
> My quick grep for other pool based allocators(ex. mempool, zpool) also
> says that they don't check whether passed pool pointer is NULL or not
> in destroy function.
Maybe some of those should be converted as well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
