> > But in the krealloc() case the rb_erase() will be trying to reference > > freed memmory because krealloc() frees the old pointer on success. > > Yeah, I realize that you're absolutely right, but my box > didn't complain about the abused old pointers when we're not in int_nodes > case, which is weird...
The freed space probably just hasn't been reused yet. Have you tried with CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC or CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB? > > Yeah, it's insane, but no more so than using krealloc() for an array > > with internal pointers in the first place. > > I doubt if it can work, I'd prefer the re-insert dance. It should, but it is a disgusting hack. Not worth it if you can't get it going. Re-initializing the nodes instead of removing them after they're moved should work. But really, this is all bonkers. A ulist implementation that doesn't require this fixup would be better. Maybe lose the array and have a simple list_head and slab of allocated structs. Reliable first, performant second, presuming there's data to justify it. - z -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
