On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 07:31 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 05:43:50PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 11:25 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >> Very lightly tested, doesn't crash the kernel. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mich...@ellerman.id.au> > >> --- > >> > >> It doesn't look like we actually need to add any support in the > >> arch code - or is there something I'm missing? > > > >Hmm, I think we want to add annotations in lib/lmb.c don't we? That's > >our low-level pre-bootmem allocator. > > > >And we have the same problem with _edata as x86. > > I'll point out that the Fedora developers enabled this in the rawhide kernels > for 3 days, and then turned it back off because most of the things found were > false positives.
Yes, but with 2.6.31-rc3 the number of false positives dropped considerably. I don't plan to push any new kmemleak patches for 2.6.31 (probably only a bug-fix). Anyway, even when it reports real leaks, it is very time consuming to investigate. I don't have any PPC hardware but as long as someone sorts out things like _edata or other PPC-specific allocators which aren't currently tracked by kmemleak, I'm OK with the original patch: Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> -- Catalin _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
