On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 16:40 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:01 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > We don't actually want kmemleak to track the lmb allocations, so we > > pass min_count as 0. However telling kmemleak about lmb allocations > > allows it to scan that memory for pointers to other memory that is > > tracked by kmemleak, ie. slab allocations etc. > > Looks alright to me (though I haven't tested it). You can add a > Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
Actually, Milton pointed to me that we may not want to allow all LMB chunks to be scanned by kmemleaks, things like the DART hole that's taken out of the linear mapping for example may need to be avoided, though I'm not sure what would be the right way to do it. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
