On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:34:10PM +0800, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:51:28PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ void kref_get(struct kref *kref)
> > > */
> > > int kref_put(struct kref *kref, void (*release)(struct kref *kref))
> > > {
> > > + WARN_ON(atomic_read(&kref->refcount) < 1);
> >
> > How can this ever be true? If the refcount _ever_ goes below 1, the
> > object is freed.
>
> The idea of detection kref_put() with unreferenced object was stolen
> from BUG_ON()es in blocks/ll_rw_blk.c and fs/bio.c
>
> ll_rw_blk.c: BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ioc->refcount) == 0);
>
> bio.c: BIO_BUG_ON(!atomic_read(&bio->bi_cnt));
>
> But the kref counter usually does not become zero. Because kref is
> trying to reduce the number of atomic_dec_and_test()
>
> So this patch also set kref counter to zero here:
>
> > > + if (atomic_read(&kref->refcount) == 1)
> > > + atomic_set(&kref->refcount, 0);
But again, if this happens the memory will be freed. So again,
CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB will catch this kind of thing.
Is there some reason you created these patches? Were you trying to
debug something that was tracked down to a kref issue?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
