On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 17:13 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 02-06-16, 21:37, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 16:52 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 02-06-16, 21:08, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 16:04 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The policy is copied (unnecessarily) and is never freed. Fix it by
> > > > > just
> > > > > getting a reference to the existing policy structure and putting it
> > > > > back.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
> > > >
> > > > When was it broken, always?
> > > >
> > > > Cc: stable ?
> > >
> > > Its a small memory leak and its not that we will fail on something. So
> > > didn't bother to add those details, but in case they are required:
> > >
> > > Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # 4.3+
> > > Fixes: 227942809b52 ("cpufreq: powernv: Restore cpu frequency to
> > > policy->cur on unthrottling")
> >
> > OK. I can't actually see where the copy is?
> >
> > But if we are leaking even a small amount of memory in a loop like that, in
> > a
> > function that's run semi-regularly, then it's going to add up eventually.
>
> Urg, it wasn't a memory leak actually. I misread.
>
> I somehow thought that cpufreq_get_policy() is also allocating memory
> for the policy, but it just memcpy's it into the callers buffer. So,
> that's not a problem really.
>
> This patch should be just dropped. Sorry for the noise.
OK, no worries.
cheers
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
