[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/hap: Fix memory leak of domain->arch.hvm_domain.dirty_vram
>>> On 29.11.12 at 02:00, Kouya Shimura <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/28/2012 05:39 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 28.11.12 at 07:51, Kouya Shimura <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This patch fixes the memory leak of domain->arch.hvm_domain.dirty_vram. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kouya Shimura <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Wouldn't it be more consistent (and less redundant) to do this >> through calling hap_track_dirty_vram(d, 0, 0, ...)? And even if >> not, the conditional around the freeing/clearing is pointless. > > From another point of view, it's consistent since it almost > copied from shadow_teardown()@xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c. > That is a sibling function of hap_teardown(). > If it's not preferable, another cleanup patch should be made. Tim will have the final say here anyway. But my general opinion is that copying existing code is not an excuse to also copy its eventual deficiencies. > IMHO, I feel no good to remain a pointer to the freed memory > even though it never be dereferenced any more. > So it makes sense to check the pointer and set it NULL. I didn't say you shouldn't clear the pointer field. All I said is that the conditional around the freeing and clearing is pointless. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |