On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 02:29:23AM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 04/16/2015 04:46 PM, David Gibson wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:31:03PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > >>The iommu_free_table helper release memory it is using (the TCE table and > >>@it_map) and release the iommu_table struct as well. We might not want > >>the very last step as we store iommu_table in parent structures. > > > >Yeah, as I commented on the earlier patch, freeing the surrounding > >group from a function taking just the individual table is wrong. > > > This is iommu tables created by the old code which stores these iommu_table > struct pointers in device nodes. I believe there is a plan to get rid of > iommu tables there and when this is done, this workaround will be > gone.
Um.. what? The connection of where pointers are stored to an obvious error with object lifetime handling is not at all obvious. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
pgppkutMCHKaQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev