[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170526171903.5q3e5vqbhzcymdcd@hermes.olymp>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 18:19:03 +0100
From: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: kmemleak: Factor object reference updating
out of scan_block()
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 05:23:30PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 05:21:08PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 05:09:17PM +0100, Luis Henriques wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:42:16PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > The scan_block() function updates the number of references (pointers) to
> > > > objects, adding them to the gray_list when object->min_count is reached.
> > > > The patch factors out this functionality into a separate update_refs()
> > > > function.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> > > > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
> > > > Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> [...]
> > > FWIW, I've tested this patchset and I don't see kmemleak triggering the
> > > false positives anymore.
> >
> > Thanks for re-testing (I dropped your tested-by from the initial patch
> > since I made a small modification).
>
> Sorry, the "re-testing" comment was meant at the other Luis on cc ;)
> (Luis R. Rodriguez). It's been a long day...
Heh, no worries! What are the odds of having 2 different guys named Luis
testing the same patch? :-)
Cheers,
--
Luís
Powered by blists - more mailing lists