[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803021051020.11084@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:54:58 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] object debugging infrastructure
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 10:24:52AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > We can see an ever repeating problem pattern with objects of any kind in
> > the kernel:
> >
> > 1) free of active objects
> > 2) reinitialization of active objects
>
> Ah, this looks nice. For kobjects I would like to track the above, as
> well as:
> - use of initialized objects
> - use of "freed" objects
> - objects that are never destroyed, yet the code controlling
> them thinks they are.
>
> I say "freed" as sometimes kobjects are in static structures and are not
> in memory that ends up being kfree() so slab poisoning doesn't help.
Good point. I try to come up with the infrastructure for that.
> Do you think that would be able to worked into this framework? At first
> glance, it seems like it would be easy to add, but would like to make
> sure.
Yes, that should be possible
> If so, I'll gladly add this to the kobjects to help with issues there.
kobjects came to my mind as well, when I was thinking about possible
use cases.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists