Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:45:42 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Marko Zec <zec@FreeBSD.org>, julian@FreeBSD.org Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r220416 - head/sys/netgraph Message-ID: <20110407194542.GZ84445@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201104071615.49994.zec@freebsd.org> References: <201104071140.p37BeAlE039248@svn.freebsd.org> <20110407135440.GX84445@FreeBSD.org> <201104071615.49994.zec@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 04:15:49PM +0200, Marko Zec wrote: M> On Thursday 07 April 2011 15:54:40 Gleb Smirnoff wrote: M> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:40:10AM +0000, Marko Zec wrote: M> > M> Author: zec M> > M> Date: Thu Apr 7 11:40:10 2011 M> > M> New Revision: 220416 M> > M> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/220416 M> > M> M> > M> Log: M> > M> Properly unref ng_hub nodes on shutdown, so that we don't leak them. M> > M> M> > M> MFC after: 3 days M> > M> M> > M> Modified: M> > M> head/sys/netgraph/ng_hub.c M> > M> M> > M> Modified: head/sys/netgraph/ng_hub.c M> > M> M> > =========================================================================== M> >=== M> --- head/sys/netgraph/ng_hub.c Thu Apr 7 11:13:50 2011 (r220415) M> M> > +++ head/sys/netgraph/ng_hub.c Thu Apr 7 11:40:10 2011 (r220416) M> @@ M> > -157,6 +157,8 @@ ng_hub_shutdown(node_p node) M> > M> const priv_p priv = NG_NODE_PRIVATE(node); M> > M> M> > M> free(priv, M_NETGRAPH_HUB); M> > M> + NG_NODE_SET_PRIVATE(node, NULL); M> > M> + NG_NODE_UNREF(node); M> > M> return (0); M> > M> } M> > M> > Do we really need NG_NODE_SET_PRIVATE()? M> M> Most probably not, though the majority of .shutdown method implementations in M> sys/netgraph do include a call to NG_NODE_SET_PRIVATE(node, NULL), so I did a M> C/P from one of those for consistency. If there's a consensus that M> NG_NODE_SET_PRIVATE(node, NULL) in shutdown methods serves no useful purpose M> then we should do a sweep across all the existing nodes... My humble opinion is that they should be swept. At least to avoid more c/p in future. Julian? -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110407194542.GZ84445>