Re: Now i2o_core.c memleak/incorrectness?

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
14 Mar 2003 00:42:55 +0000

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] concurrent block allocation for ext2 against 2.5.64"
Previous message: Roman Zippel: "Re: [ANNOUNCE] BK->CVS (real time mirror)"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: dpt_i2o.c memleak/incorrectness"

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 19:38, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Well, it seems that i2o does not always follow this rule.
> Also i2o_init_outbound_q() seems not free this "status" thing if everything
> went ok, is this intentional?
> Or perhaps something like this patch is needed?

I'll take a look. I'm doing a bunch of i2o cleanup in 2.5 right now

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] concurrent block allocation for ext2 against 2.5.64"
Previous message: Roman Zippel: "Re: [ANNOUNCE] BK->CVS (real time mirror)"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: dpt_i2o.c memleak/incorrectness"