Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964975AbWCTVhT (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:37:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964980AbWCTVhT (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:37:19 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:64212 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964975AbWCTVhR (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:37:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:34:07 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Muli Ben-Yehuda Cc: matthew@wil.cx, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make sure nobody's leaking resources Message-Id: <20060320133407.1e75eafa.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060320161007.GA25444@granada.merseine.nu> References: <20060320155304.GI8980@parisc-linux.org> <20060320161007.GA25444@granada.merseine.nu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1571 Lines: 39 Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:53:04AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > Currently, releasing a resource also releases all of its children. That > > made sense when request_resource was the main method of dividing up the > > memory map. With the increased use of insert_resource, it seems to me > > that we should instead reparent the newly orphaned resources. Before > > we do that, let's make sure that nobody's actually relying on the current > > semantics. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox > > > > diff -urpNX dontdiff linus-2.6/kernel/resource.c parisc-2.6/kernel/resource.c > > --- linus-2.6/kernel/resource.c 2006-03-20 07:29:06.000000000 -0700 > > +++ parisc-2.6/kernel/resource.c 2006-03-20 07:00:47.000000000 -0700 > > @@ -181,6 +181,8 @@ static int __release_resource(struct res > > { > > struct resource *tmp, **p; > > > > + BUG_ON(old->child); > > + > > Is this expressely forbidden at this stage, or just "not recommended"? > if the latter, WARN_ON() might be more appropriate. > Yes, there's no way we can make changes like this to either -mm or to mainline. Making people's perfectly-working kernels go splat helps neither them nor us. A WARN_ON() which shuts itself up after one or three invokations would be appropriate here. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/