On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:23:41PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > > > 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. I agree, I'm trying to work it out and will test it with DEBUG_PAGEALLOC ;) thanks, liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
