[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1ee927e5-2bb6-a72c-8705-95bc6cacf719@web.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:30:18 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Chen Wandun <chenwandun@...wei.com>,
Cheng Jian <cj.chengjian@...wei.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Fixing memory leaks in perf events parser
> fix some memleaks in parse_events_term__sym_hw and parse_events_term__clone.
Can it be more appropriate to refer to the term “memory leak” in consistent ways?
> v1 ==> v2
> 1. split into two patches
Corresponding development consequences can become more interesting.
> v2 ==> v3
> add more commit log.
>
> Chen Wandun (1):
> perf tools: fix potential memleak in perf events parser
>
> Cheng Jian (1):
> perf tools: fix potential memleak in perf events parser
>
> tools/perf/util/parse-events.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
Are there any chances to make the change distinction a bit easier
by adjusting such commit subjects?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists