Hi Vegard,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Also, the error report is bogus. We should make kmemcheck depend on
> !CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB && !CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON for now, because these
> modes interfere with the checking that kmemcheck does.
Agreed.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That said, we *might* be able to do a kmemcheck_off()/kmemcheck_on()
> thing around the special code. Maybe a kmemcheck_read() which
> bypasses the checking for a single read.
>
> But I really do think kmemcheck and slab/slub debugging should be
> mutually exclusive. They do essentially the same thing, except that
> kmemcheck is much more eager and detects problems right where they
> happen (though sometimes too eagerly too; the false positives).
I'm not so sure about this. You ought to be able to compile-in SLUB
debugging and kmemcheck support but only enable one of them at
run-time.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
