Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:46:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:46:29 -0500 Received: from mnh-1-23.mv.com ([207.22.10.55]:55044 "EHLO ccure.karaya.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:46:28 -0500 Message-Id: <200212202258.RAA03444@ccure.karaya.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: John Reiser Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Julian Seward Subject: Re: Valgrind meets UML In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:26:39 PST." <3E0336AF.6060607@BitWagon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:58:18 -0500 From: Jeff Dike Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1106 Lines: 27 jreiser@BitWagon.com said: > Implementors of allocators can have bugs in the valgrind declarations > they add. An "independent" check based on documented > externally-visible behavior can help. The problem is that valgrind is going to look under the covers of the kernel allocators and see the externally-visible requirements being violated. Either you implement a globally correct description, which includes the externally visible description as a subset, or you somehow tell valgrind not to complain about stuff inside the allocator. The second sounds complicated, and anyway hides bugs in the allocator. > Nested allocators (inner allocator grabs a large region, outer > allocator performs sub-allocations of small pieces from the large > region) can be troublesome. And are another reason for implementing a globally correct description. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/