lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: v2.3.17pre1 - Patches, Complaints, Questions and Jubilations
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:

> I've been looking through the IKD for other interesting things, and I
> thought that we would probably also want the CONFIG_MEMLEAK option in the
> kernel. What's your opinion on this one? When I get an answer, I'll
> extract the applicable parts (either just the deadlock detection code, or
> both of them), port them to v2.3, and then post a patch here. If that's ok
> with everyone, that is...

IMHO, memleak has too many ifdefs and is needed far too infrequently
to be included in the main tree. (howto remove suggestions welcome)

It also has some interesting and undocumented features that could cause
recurring oops reports from (network) module users. It's a nice tool,
but you have to use it carefully. (teaching the kernel to not unload
modules which have active memory allocations would cost even more ugly
ifdefs for no real benefit)

-Mike


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.101 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site