Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:56:11 +0300 (EEST) | | From | Pekka J Enberg <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6 7/9] Remove some of the kmemleak false positives |
| |
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > but "supporting existing kernel coding style as-is" is not a must-have > criterium for inclusion. While preserving semantics is strongly > encouraged of course, a patch can change semantics (or can introduce > restrictions) as long as it's common-sense or there is no other way out. > The question is benefit vs. disadvantage, not a rigid "does it change > semantics" rule.
Agreed. I wasn't talking about general principles though but about the current kmemleak annotations, which I still find lacking as-is.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I found at least two unacceptable false positive classes: > > > > - arch/i386/kernel/setup.c: > > False positive because res pointer is stored in a global instance of > > struct resource. > > there's no good way around this one but to annotate it in one way or > another.
Scanning bss and data sections is too expensive, I guess. I would prefer we create a separate section for gc roots but what you're suggesting is ok as well.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > - drivers/base/platform.c and fs/ext3/dir.c: > > False positive because we allocate memory for struct + some extra > > stuff. > > > > At least the latter can be fixed as outlined by Catalin in another > > mail. > > yes.
Indeed and should be fixed before inclusion.
Pekka - 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/
|  |