Hi Andrzej,
[...]
> diff --git a/lib/ref_tracker.c b/lib/ref_tracker.c
> index dc7b14aa3431e2..5e9f90bbf771b0 100644
> --- a/lib/ref_tracker.c
> +++ b/lib/ref_tracker.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,38 @@ struct ref_tracker {
> depot_stack_handle_t free_stack_handle;
> };
>
> +void __ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir,
> + unsigned int display_limit)
can we call this ref_tracker_dir_print_locked() instead of using
the '__'?
> +{
> + struct ref_tracker *tracker;
> + unsigned int i = 0;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&dir->lock);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(tracker, &dir->list, head) {
> + if (i < display_limit) {
> + pr_err("leaked reference.\n");
> + if (tracker->alloc_stack_handle)
> + stack_depot_print(tracker->alloc_stack_handle);
> + i++;
> + } else {
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__ref_tracker_dir_print);
> +
> +void ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir,
> + unsigned int display_limit)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&dir->lock, flags);
> + __ref_tracker_dir_print(dir, display_limit);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dir->lock, flags);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ref_tracker_dir_print);
> +
> void ref_tracker_dir_exit(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir)
> {
> struct ref_tracker *tracker, *n;
> @@ -27,13 +59,13 @@ void ref_tracker_dir_exit(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir)
> kfree(tracker);
> dir->quarantine_avail++;
> }
> - list_for_each_entry_safe(tracker, n, &dir->list, head) {
> - pr_err("leaked reference.\n");
> - if (tracker->alloc_stack_handle)
> - stack_depot_print(tracker->alloc_stack_handle);
> + if (!list_empty(&dir->list)) {
> + __ref_tracker_dir_print(dir, 16);
> leak = true;
> - list_del(&tracker->head);
> - kfree(tracker);
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(tracker, n, &dir->list, head) {
> + list_del(&tracker->head);
> + kfree(tracker);
> + }
Just thinking whether this should go on a different patch, but I
don't have a strong opinion.
Looks good!
Andi
