From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [3.1-rc6] kmalloc(64) leak from IDE Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:40:19 +0200 Message-ID: <20110930064019.GA8092@liondog.tnic> References: <20110922072643.GA27232@hostway.ca> <20110922084811.GC17640@liondog.tnic> <20110922202337.GB32661@hostway.ca> <20110923072118.GA13293@liondog.tnic> <20110923173808.GB26481@hostway.ca> <20110925085818.GA10947@liondog.tnic> <20110926080549.GA14697@hostway.ca> <20110927170755.GA31384@gere.osrc.amd.com> <20110929092705.GA809@liondog.tnic> <20110929224505.GC7959@hostway.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:40058 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752899Ab1I3GkY (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:40:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110929224505.GC7959@hostway.ca> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Simon Kirby Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 03:45:05PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote: > Tested against on 2.6.39 with and without this patch, and it > definitely leaks without it and does not leak with it. 3.0 and 3.1-rc8 > also seems good with the patch. Good job, thanks! > I tested on another IDE box (with an old Quantum Fireball 6.4GB!) and :-) > even with software RAID, I could not see the leak, so I had to use the > original box, of course. The only difference I could see is the test > box has piix and the production box has via82cxxx, but anyway... It might be because the production box drive is reporting of being capable of doing write cache flushes, i.e. it should say something like ideXX: cache flushes supported in dmesg. idedisk_prep_fn() is contingent on that and is used only then AFAICT. Thanks again for testing. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris.