"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:35:00PM +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: >> I've spent a non-negligible amount of time looking into a kmemleak that >> didn't exist in the code I was testing because there was an old .kmemleak >> file in the results directory. I don't think this is an intended behaviour, >> so I'm proposing to remove these files everytime we capture the result of a >> new scan. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> common/rc | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> Changes since v1: >> I realised that _capture_kmemleak() is called with /dev/null as argument, so >> this version is probably better. >> >> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc >> index 741579af82d2..6850889e815e 100644 >> --- a/common/rc >> +++ b/common/rc >> @@ -4433,6 +4433,8 @@ _capture_kmemleak() >> local kern_knob="$DEBUGFS_MNT/kmemleak" >> local leak_file="$1" >> >> + [ -f "$leak_file" ] && rm -f "$leak_file" > > I was hoping you'd incorporate the comment explaining why the test uses > -f and not -e. You're right. The reason I didn't was because I sent out v2 before seeing your email. Anyway, I'll send out v3 in a second. And thanks for the review, by the way! Cheers, -- Luís > > --D > >> + >> # Tell the kernel to scan for memory leaks. Apparently the write >> # returns before the scan is complete, so do it twice in the hopes >> # that twice is enough to capture all the leaks.
