On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 04:26:02PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > [+CC drm folks, see the following threads: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201703232349.bgb95898.qhlvffomtfo...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1490352808-7187-1-git-send-email-penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp > ] > > On 03/24/2017 07:17 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 06:05:45PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > >> Just fix the drm code. There is zero point in releasing memory under > >> spinlock. > > > > I disagree. The spinlock has to be held while deleting from the hash > > table. > > And what makes you think so?
The bad naming of the function. If somebody has a function called 'hashtable_remove' I naturally think it means "remove something from the hash table". This function should be called drm_ht_destroy(). And then, yes, it becomes obvious that there is no need to protect destuction against usage because if anyone is still using the hashtable, they're about to get a NULL pointer dereference. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
