Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6 7/9] Remove some of the kmemleak false positives

[Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.Helsinki.FI>]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> but "supporting existing kernel coding style as-is" is not a must-have 
> criterium for inclusion. While preserving semantics is strongly 
> encouraged of course, a patch can change semantics (or can introduce 
> restrictions) as long as it's common-sense or there is no other way out. 
> The question is benefit vs. disadvantage, not a rigid "does it change 
> semantics" rule.

Agreed.  I wasn't talking about general principles though but about the 
current kmemleak annotations, which I still find lacking as-is.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I found at least two unacceptable false positive classes:
> > 
> >   - arch/i386/kernel/setup.c:
> >     False positive because res pointer is stored in a global instance of
> >     struct resource.
> 
> there's no good way around this one but to annotate it in one way or 
> another.

Scanning bss and data sections is too expensive, I guess.  I would prefer 
we create a separate section for gc roots but what you're suggesting is 
ok as well.
 
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >   - drivers/base/platform.c and fs/ext3/dir.c:
> >     False positive because we allocate memory for struct + some extra
> >     stuff.
> > 
> > At least the latter can be fixed as outlined by Catalin in another 
> > mail.
> 
> yes.

Indeed and should be fixed before inclusion.

				Pekka