From: hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp
Subject: Re: Q, slab, kmemleak_erase() and redzone? 
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <4B160A16.90703@cs.helsinki.fi>
References: <4B1502E3.4000304@cs.helsinki.fi> <1259690210.2121.233.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <4B1609D0.6030809@cs.helsinki.fi> <4B160A16.90703@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:57:18 +0900
Message-ID: <9890.1259737038@jrobl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1027
Lines: 27


Pekka Enberg:
> > No, you are absolutely correct. Can you please send an updated patch to 
> > Catalin that adds a comment on top of the cpu_cache_get() call that 
> > explains why we need it there?
> 
> Doh, this was supposed to be a reply to Okajima's email :-).

Before I send a small patch, let me make sure about other small issues.

- How heavy is 'ac = cpu_cache_get(cachep)' (which will be inserted by
  the patch)?
  It will be compiled and executed regardless CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK, and
  it is totally meaningless when DEBUG_KMEMLEAK is disabled. Can we
  ignore this loss?

- Should we add a condition 'if (objp)' before calling kmemleak_erase()?
  As Catalin wrote, it may be harmless. But setting NULL is unnecessary.
  Do you accept this change too?


J. R. Okajima
--
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/