In message <3DB8DC72.6A08C74F@us.ibm.com> you write:
> > This is unacceptable crap, sorry. You *must* allocate the resources
> > required to free the object *at the time you allocate the object*,
> > since freeing must not fail.
> >
> > > Even better: is it possible to embed the rcu_ipc_free inside the
> > > object-to-be-freed? Perhaps not?
> >
> > Yes, this must be done.
> >
> I thought about embed rcu_ipc_free inside the ipc_ids structure before.
> But there could be a problem if grow_ary() is called again before the
> old array associated with the previous grow_ary() has not scheduled to
> be freed yet. I see a need to do that now, as you made very good point.
> I will make the changes tomorrow.
You don't need to allocate it in the object, but you *do* need to fail
grow_ary() if you can't allocate it.
I had the same dilemma when I tried to write a generic "kfree_rcu(void
*)" last year: you simply can't do it 8(
Cheers,
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:26 EST