On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 13:55 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Alexey Fisher <bug-track@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This patch work for me. > > nice. Any leftovers that might be false positives and need > annotation? With the latest mainline all the reports I get look like real leaks but some of them are pretty difficult to debug. I have a kmemleak development tree as well which, among other things like more cond_resched() calls, scans all the task stacks (currently using for_each_process) but it doesn't reduce the number of reports. > We learned this with lockdep: the moment a typical x86 distro bootup > is 'warnings free', utility of the debugging facility increases > dramatically: people can standardize on 'kmemleak should never > produce warnings' workflows and distros can also start feeding > kmemleak reports into kerneloops.org or so. Yes. It's also easy to identify recent commits causing leaks but currently it looks like some of the have been around for some time (though probably not so serious leaks). -- Catalin -- 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
