On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> clang found this one too as a "Dead assignment"
> Unless my pointer-fu is totally messed up, this function
> was never actually updating the list head.
> This would mean that the later free_allocations() calls in
> incore_ext_teardown() and free_rt_dup_extent_tree() don't
> actually free any items, and therefore leak memory.
> V2: now with correct pointer-fu.
Barry already had this in his repair speedups patchkit, but I left it
out for now because I wasn't too sure how this could work at all.
After reviewing it again I noticed that it can actually work because the
addr pointer in the ba_rec_t is unused, and we make use of the fact that
the ba_rec_t is the first field in the structure to be tacked. Entirely
to subtile for my taste. Id' prefer to just put a list_head into the
extent_alloc_rec_t and rt_extent_alloc_rec_t and openconde the
tracking/freeing of the beast. The list_head if just as large as the
ba_rec_t and make sure the list handlinjg is right, and the openconding
gets rid of the annoying assumption that the ba_rec_t is the first thing
in the structure to be tracked. It should also be a net-removal of