On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 11:54:12AM +0800, Patrick Wang wrote: > diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c > index a182f5ddaf68..1e9e0aa93ae5 100644 > --- a/mm/kmemleak.c > +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c > @@ -172,6 +172,8 @@ struct kmemleak_object { > #define OBJECT_NO_SCAN (1 << 2) > /* flag set to fully scan the object when scan_area allocation failed */ > #define OBJECT_FULL_SCAN (1 << 3) > +/* flag set for object allocated with physical address */ > +#define OBJECT_PHYS (1 << 4) > > #define HEX_PREFIX " " > /* number of bytes to print per line; must be 16 or 32 */ > @@ -575,7 +577,8 @@ static int __save_stack_trace(unsigned long *trace) > * memory block and add it to the object_list and object_tree_root. > */ > static struct kmemleak_object *create_object(unsigned long ptr, size_t size, > - int min_count, gfp_t gfp) > + int min_count, gfp_t gfp, > + bool is_phys) The patch looks fine but I wonder whether we should have different functions for is_phys true/false, we may end up fewer changes overall since most places simply pass is_phys == false: static struct kmemleak_object *__create_object(unsigned long ptr, size_t size, int min_count, gfp_t gfp, bool is_phys); static struct kmemleak_object *create_object(unsigned long ptr, size_t size, int min_count, gfp_t gfp) { return __create_object(ptr, size, min_count, gfp, false); } static struct kmemleak_object *create_object_phys(unsigned long ptr, size_t size, int min_count, gfp_t gfp) { return __create_object(ptr, size, min_count, gfp, true); } Same for the other patches that change a few more functions. -- Catalin