Thank you reply
There is something wrong with my description. is it feasible to describe as
follows:
The resucer is already free in "destroy_workqueue" and
"wq->rescuer = NULL" was executed, but in "rcu_free_wq"
it's release again (equivalent to kfree(NULL)), this is
unnecessary, so should remove.
On 5/26/20 4:56 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 5:22 PM <qiang.zh...@windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Zhang Qiang <qiang.zh...@windriver.com>
>>
>> The callback function "rcu_free_wq" could be called after memory
>> was released for "rescuer" already, Thus delete a misplaced call
>> of the function "kfree".
>
> Hello
>
> wq->rescuer is guaranteed to be NULL in rcu_free_wq()
> since def98c84b6cd
> ("workqueue: Fix spurious sanity check failures in destroy_workqueue()")
>
> And the resucer is already free in destroy_workqueue()
> since 8efe1223d73c
> ("workqueue: Fix missing kfree(rescuer) in destroy_workqueue()")
>
> The patch is a cleanup to remove a "kfree(NULL);".
> But the changelog is misleading.
>
>>
>> Fixes: 6ba94429c8e7 ("workqueue: Reorder sysfs code")
>
> It is totally unrelated.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Qiang <qiang.zh...@windriver.com>
>> ---
>> v1->v2->v3:
>> Only commit information modification.
>> kernel/workqueue.c | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> index 891ccad5f271..a2451cdcd503 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> @@ -3491,7 +3491,6 @@ static void rcu_free_wq(struct rcu_head *rcu)
>> else
>> free_workqueue_attrs(wq->unbound_attrs);
>>
>> - kfree(wq->rescuer);
>> kfree(wq);
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.24.1
>>
