On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 12:28:18PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 12.10.2026 um 13:43 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben: > > The block_acct_cleanup method failed to release memory associated > > with block histograms. > > > > Fixes: b741ae7417 (block/accounting: introduce latency histogram) > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> > > --- > > block/accounting.c | 7 +++++++ > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/block/accounting.c b/block/accounting.c > > index 038af370170..40ed70782b4 100644 > > --- a/block/accounting.c > > +++ b/block/accounting.c > > @@ -80,6 +80,13 @@ bool block_acct_setup(BlockAcctStats *stats, enum > > OnOffAuto account_invalid, > > void block_acct_cleanup(BlockAcctStats *stats) > > { > > BlockAcctTimedStats *s, *next; > > + size_t i; > > + for (i = 0; i < BLOCK_MAX_IOTYPE; i++) { > > + BlockLatencyHistogram *hist = &stats->latency_histogram[i]; > > + g_free(hist->bins); > > + g_free(hist->boundaries); > > + } > > + > > This seems to duplicate block_latency_histograms_clear(). Should we just > call it here?
Yes, that sounds sensible, I'll repost. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com ~~ https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :| |: https://libvirt.org ~~ https://entangle-photo.org :| |: https://pixelfed.art/berrange ~~ https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
