Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?

2007-05-24 Thread Jesper Juhl
Any chance the patches below that fix two mem leaks in XFS will make it in in time for 2.6.22? I believe they should... On 18/05/07, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thursday 17 May 2007 04:40:24 David Chinner wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:31:16PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?

2007-05-24 Thread Jesper Juhl
Any chance the patches below that fix two mem leaks in XFS will make it in in time for 2.6.22? I believe they should... On 18/05/07, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 17 May 2007 04:40:24 David Chinner wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:31:16PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: Hi,

Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?

2007-05-17 Thread Jesper Juhl
On Thursday 17 May 2007 04:40:24 David Chinner wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:31:16PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The Coverity checker found a memory leak in xfs_inactive(). > > > So, the code allocates a transaction, but in the case where 'truncate' is > > !=0 and

Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?

2007-05-17 Thread Jesper Juhl
On Thursday 17 May 2007 04:40:24 David Chinner wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:31:16PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: Hi, The Coverity checker found a memory leak in xfs_inactive(). So, the code allocates a transaction, but in the case where 'truncate' is !=0 and

Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?

2007-05-16 Thread David Chinner
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:31:16PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > Hi, > > The Coverity checker found a memory leak in xfs_inactive(). > So, the code allocates a transaction, but in the case where 'truncate' is > !=0 and xfs_itruncate_start(ip, XFS_ITRUNC_DEFINITE, 0); happens to return > an

[RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?

2007-05-16 Thread Jesper Juhl
Hi, The Coverity checker found a memory leak in xfs_inactive(). The offending code is this bit : 1671tp = xfs_trans_alloc(mp, XFS_TRANS_INACTIVE); At conditional (1): "truncate != 0" taking true path 1672if (truncate) { 1673/* 1674

[RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?

2007-05-16 Thread Jesper Juhl
Hi, The Coverity checker found a memory leak in xfs_inactive(). The offending code is this bit : 1671tp = xfs_trans_alloc(mp, XFS_TRANS_INACTIVE); At conditional (1): truncate != 0 taking true path 1672if (truncate) { 1673/* 1674

Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?

2007-05-16 Thread David Chinner
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:31:16PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: Hi, The Coverity checker found a memory leak in xfs_inactive(). So, the code allocates a transaction, but in the case where 'truncate' is !=0 and xfs_itruncate_start(ip, XFS_ITRUNC_DEFINITE, 0); happens to return an error,