On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:30:47PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > Bugs aside, I'd much rather see UNLEAK() annotations than external ones, > > for all the reasons we introduced UNLEAK() in the first place: > > > > - it keeps the annotations near the code. Yes, that creates conflicts > > when the code is changed (or the leak is actually fixed), but that's > > a feature. It keeps them from going stale. > > I agree completely. I noted as much in my message here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/YXJAfICQN8s5Gm7s@nand.local/ > > but Ævar made it sound like his work would be made much easier without > the conflict. Since I'm not in any kind of rush to make t5319 leak-free, > I figured that queueing the parts of that series that wouldn't conflict > with Ævar's ongoing work would be a net-positive. Yeah, to be clear, if there's work in progress in an area, then _not_ annotating it (with either method) is perfectly fine with me in the meantime. -Peff
