On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:42:30 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/10/24 5:46 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 11:22:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:27:17 +0200 > >> Julia Lawall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > diff --git a/fs/tracefs/inode.c b/fs/tracefs/inode.c > >> > index 7c29f4afc23d..338c52168e61 100644 > >> > --- a/fs/tracefs/inode.c > >> > +++ b/fs/tracefs/inode.c > >> > @@ -53,14 +53,6 @@ static struct inode *tracefs_alloc_inode(struct > >> > super_block *sb) > >> > return &ti->vfs_inode; > >> > } > >> > > >> > -static void tracefs_free_inode_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu) > >> > -{ > >> > - struct tracefs_inode *ti; > >> > - > >> > - ti = container_of(rcu, struct tracefs_inode, rcu); > >> > - kmem_cache_free(tracefs_inode_cachep, ti); > >> > >> Does this work? > >> > >> tracefs needs to be freed via the tracefs_inode_cachep. Does > >> kfree_rcu() handle specific frees for objects that were not allocated > >> via kmalloc()? > > > > A recent change to kfree() allows it to correctly handle memory allocated > > via kmem_cache_alloc(). News to me as of a few weeks ago. ;-) > > Hey, I did try not to keep that a secret :) > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > Heh, I didn't look at that patch very deeply. -- Steve
