Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: > Am 03.12.2015 um 13:06 schrieb Markus Armbruster: >> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: >> >>> On 2 December 2015 at 20:20, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> PATCH 1 cleans up unnecessary type punning. >>>> >>>> PATCH 2 plugs a massive memory leak in qom-test. I think it would be >>>> nice to have in 2.5, but at this late stage, it's really up to the >>>> maintainer. >>> >>> To go into 2.5 it needs to be reviewed and either be in a pull >>> request or have a request from the maintainer for me to apply it >>> directly by the end of today UK time. >> >> Understood. >> >>> Is the memory leak a regression, or have we always leaked and >>> not noticed? >> >> As far as I can see, a minor leak was introduced in commit 5c1904f, but >> the major leakage comes from commit dc06cbd, both v2.0. > > Well, as the qom-test maintainer I have been struggling with the two 1GB > Exynos4 machines on i586 hosts from 2.3 on already > (http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=957379). While this > happens really early and we have been able to work around it by > decoupling compilation and execution of the tests a little (blaming make > or whomever for memory fragmentation), I'd like to investigate whether > this helps that regression. Otherwise memory cleanup has not been a > topic for non-QAPI allocations in tests either so it does not seem too > urgent to me if it's just cosmetic.
I agree chasing small memory leaks in tests is not a priority. However, tests dirtying hundreds of megabytes aren't so nice to developers with small machines. But as I said, for-2.5 is maintainer's discretion. > The preceding patch looks fine to me on a first look. > > An unrelated question to consider going forward is whether we should > conditionalize and by default skip my property tests for time reasons. qom-test has caught bugs early for me, but it is slooow. Perhaps mark the tests for all the old machine types as slow? [...]
