On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:34:14PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > Why does that code bother with destroying/creating that sucker dynamically? > > Is there any point at all? > > I'm not sure about the dynamic allocation part, but I fear that if we just > switch to using static allocations it'll hide the underlying issue that > triggered this bug instead of fixing it.
FWIW, slub.c variant of kmem_cache_destroy() is buggered - struct kobject embedded into struct kmem_cache, its ktype is slab_ktype, which has NULL ->release()... -- 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/
