From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCC7968
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:06:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2016 05:06:13 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,351,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="993612380"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2016 05:06:11 -0700
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:08:47 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
Cc: patrik.r.andersson@ericsson.com, thomas.monjalon@6wind.com,
	dev@dpdk.org
Message-ID: <20160712120847.GE26521@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <CAATJJ0+i0+Qyv4sUwqPJAgPF3QdAS-RP3jZr+_OvGZLjoMEPPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1467807898-27772-1-git-send-email-christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
 <20160706130812.GP26521@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160706130812.GP26521@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Memory leak when adding/removing
 vhost_user ports
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:06:13 -0000

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 09:08:12PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:24:57PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > Hi,
> > while checking for dpdk 16.07 what backports are accepted in the meantime so I
> > can drop them I found this particular discussion has been silently forgotten by
> > all of us.
> 
> Not really. As later I found that my patch was actually wrong (besides
> the issue you already found). I will revisit this issue thoroughly when
> get time, hopefully, next week.

Here it is: vhost_destroy() will be invoked when:

- QEMU quits gracefully 
- QEMU terminates unexpectedly

Meaning, there should be no memory leak. I think we are fine here (I
maybe wrong though, feeling a bit dizzy now :(

	--yliu