On 4/7/11 7:15 AM, Marko Zec wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2011 15:54:40 Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:40:10AM +0000, Marko Zec wrote:
M> Author: zec
M> Date: Thu Apr 7 11:40:10 2011
M> New Revision: 220416
M> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/220416
M>
M> Log:
M> Properly unref ng_hub nodes on shutdown, so that we don't leak them.
M>
M> MFC after: 3 days
M>
M> Modified:
M> head/sys/netgraph/ng_hub.c
M>
M> Modified: head/sys/netgraph/ng_hub.c
M>
===========================================================================
=== M> --- head/sys/netgraph/ng_hub.c Thu Apr 7 11:13:50 2011
(r220415) M>
+++ head/sys/netgraph/ng_hub.c Thu Apr 7 11:40:10 2011 (r220416) M> @@
-157,6 +157,8 @@ ng_hub_shutdown(node_p node)
M> const priv_p priv = NG_NODE_PRIVATE(node);
M>
M> free(priv, M_NETGRAPH_HUB);
M> + NG_NODE_SET_PRIVATE(node, NULL);
M> + NG_NODE_UNREF(node);
M> return (0);
M> }
Do we really need NG_NODE_SET_PRIVATE()?
Most probably not, though the majority of .shutdown method implementations in
sys/netgraph do include a call to NG_NODE_SET_PRIVATE(node, NULL), so I did a
C/P from one of those for consistency. If there's a consensus that
NG_NODE_SET_PRIVATE(node, NULL) in shutdown methods serves no useful purpose
then we should do a sweep across all the existing nodes...
I'd rather do it than not do it.
private data can refer to stuff that has been malloc'd and at one
stage I had debug code that
checked for NULL there to catch leaks there's no speed advantage to
shutting down faster.. :-)
Marko
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
