On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:23:32AM +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: > "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! aha, ok. --D > 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.
