Re: [PATCH] Fix two potential mem leaks in MPT Fusion (mpt_attach())

["Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>]

On 02/08/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 01:55:33 +0200
> Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
> > +++ b/drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c
> > @@ -1393,18 +1393,18 @@ mpt_attach(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> >       struct proc_dir_entry *dent, *ent;
> >  #endif
> >
> > +     if (mpt_debug_level)
> > +             printk(KERN_INFO MYNAM ": mpt_debug_level=%xh\n", mpt_debug_level);
> > +
> > +     if (pci_enable_device(pdev))
> > +             return r;
> > +
> >       ioc = kzalloc(sizeof(MPT_ADAPTER), GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> Why on earth is that using GFP_ATOMIC?  This function later goes on to
> create procfs files and such things.
>
Dunno. But you are right, that does seem a bit odd, but I assumed
there was a reason for it.

>
> y'know, we could have a debug option which will spit warnings if someone
> does a !__GFP_WAIT allocation while !in_atomic() (only works if
> CONFIG_PREEMPT).
>
> But please, make it depend on !CONFIG_AKPM.  I shudder to think about all
> the stuff it would pick up.
>

I can try to cook up something like that tonight...

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html