Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:21:38 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/14] Kernel memory leak detector |
| |
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:51:06 +0000 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew, > > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:45 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:12:56 +0000 > > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > A new kmemleak version is available. > > > > Sorry, I'll drop this. The level of code churn in linux-next (during > > the merge window!) means that I've basically lost confidence that my > > lameass fixed-up code will still even work. > > OK. I noticed some minor conflicts with 2.6.29-rc1 but I'll have a look > at linux-next as well. IIRC, is the -mm tree based on top of linux-next?
It actually includes linux-next and Linus's tree. -mm is based on the last-released kernel version (2.6.28, 2.6.29-rc1, etc) and includes origin.patch (takes it up to current Linus) and linux-next.patch (takes it up to current linux-next).
> > > git://linux-arm.org/linux-2.6.git kmemleak > > > > It might be better to add that to linux-next. If we want to merge > > kmemleak. > > I would feel a bit more comfortable if kmemleak lived for (at least) a > release cycle in the -mm tree so that it may get wider testing. As I > said, I mainly tested it on ARM. > > If you are OK with this, I'll update the branch and make sure there are > as few conflicts as possible (the alternative is patches by e-mail and > based on top of linux-next).
The many trees in linux-next are actually based on current mainline. So if you can prepare and maintain a tree based on current mainline, Stephen could integrate that into linux-next, hopefully.
| |