On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:46:09PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -2318,9 +2323,7 @@ void mpol_free_shared_policy(struct shared_policy
> > > *p)
> > > while (next) {
> > > n = rb_entry(next, struct sp_node, nd);
> > > next = rb_next(&n->nd);
> > > - rb_erase(&n->nd, &p->root);
> >
> > Looks like we need to keep the above line? sp_delete does not remove the
> > tree entry.
> >
> > > - mpol_put(n->policy);
> > > - kmem_cache_free(sn_cache, n);
> > > + sp_delete(p, n);
>
> Yes it does, could you have accidentally mixed up sp_free (which does not
> remove the tree entry) and sp_delete (which does)? The altered code ends
> up looking like this;
Yup I got that mixed up.
Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
