Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:15:42AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:38:25PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 03:40:53PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>> Hi Vivek,
>>
>> I hap
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:15:42AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:38:25PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 03:40:53PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>> Hi Vivek,
>>
>> I hap
Dan Smith wrote:
> MH> Does it make sense to add a generic (cleanup) operation when only
> MH> one object type will make use of it?
>
> In general, I agree with you, but I don't think this is an obscure
> case.
>
> MH> If we add generic mechanisms for things without having multiple
> MH> uses th
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 23:35 +0300, Sergey Kononenko wrote:
> I've come across the need to restrict ability of mounting filesystems
> inside container and probably forbid remounting of already mounted
> filesystems in container namespace (mounted by lxc-start for example).
> It semms that the obviou
MH> Does it make sense to add a generic (cleanup) operation when only
MH> one object type will make use of it?
In general, I agree with you, but I don't think this is an obscure
case.
MH> If we add generic mechanisms for things without having multiple
MH> uses then are we just obfuscating the spe
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:52:11AM -0700, Dan Smith wrote:
> This cleanup routine checks for unattached sockets that we instantiated
> and calls sock_release() on them to avoid leaking the struct socket when
> their buffers are consumed and the struct sock is free'd.
Does it make sense to add a ge
Quoting Dan Smith (da...@us.ibm.com):
> This cleanup routine checks for unattached sockets that we instantiated
> and calls sock_release() on them to avoid leaking the struct socket when
> their buffers are consumed and the struct sock is free'd.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Smith
I realize it's being
This patch adds a 'cleanup' function to the object operations structure,
which is called during objhash teardown before the final reference is
dropped. It provides a way to perform some object cleanup when checkpoint
or restart operation is finished, in scenarios where the final reference
count ca
This cleanup routine checks for unattached sockets that we instantiated
and calls sock_release() on them to avoid leaking the struct socket when
their buffers are consumed and the struct sock is free'd.
Signed-off-by: Dan Smith
---
checkpoint/objhash.c | 13 +
1 files changed, 13 i
When we restore socket objects that are not attached to a file, we leak
the struct socket object because only an fput(file) results in the
necessary sock_release().
This set provides a proposed solution to that problem by adding a cleanup
operation to the objhash operations structure which is call
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 02:28:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> (switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the
> bugzilla web interface).
>
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:32:30 GMT
> bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
>
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?
11 matches
Mail list logo
