| Message ID | 20230712163500.5871-1-lhenriques@suse.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] common/rc: cleanup old .kmemleak files | expand |
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:35:00PM +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: > I've spent a non-negligible amount of time looking into a kmemleak that > didn't exist in the code I was testing because there was an old .kmemleak > file in the results directory. I don't think this is an intended behaviour, > so I'm proposing to remove these files everytime we capture the result of a > new scan. > > Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > --- > common/rc | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > Changes since v1: > I realised that _capture_kmemleak() is called with /dev/null as argument, so > this version is probably better. > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > index 741579af82d2..6850889e815e 100644 > --- a/common/rc > +++ b/common/rc > @@ -4433,6 +4433,8 @@ _capture_kmemleak() > local kern_knob="$DEBUGFS_MNT/kmemleak" > local leak_file="$1" > > + [ -f "$leak_file" ] && rm -f "$leak_file" I was hoping you'd incorporate the comment explaining why the test uses -f and not -e. --D > + > # Tell the kernel to scan for memory leaks. Apparently the write > # returns before the scan is complete, so do it twice in the hopes > # that twice is enough to capture all the leaks.
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org> writes: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:35:00PM +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: >> I've spent a non-negligible amount of time looking into a kmemleak that >> didn't exist in the code I was testing because there was an old .kmemleak >> file in the results directory. I don't think this is an intended behaviour, >> so I'm proposing to remove these files everytime we capture the result of a >> new scan. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> >> --- >> common/rc | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> Changes since v1: >> I realised that _capture_kmemleak() is called with /dev/null as argument, so >> this version is probably better. >> >> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc >> index 741579af82d2..6850889e815e 100644 >> --- a/common/rc >> +++ b/common/rc >> @@ -4433,6 +4433,8 @@ _capture_kmemleak() >> local kern_knob="$DEBUGFS_MNT/kmemleak" >> local leak_file="$1" >> >> + [ -f "$leak_file" ] && rm -f "$leak_file" > > I was hoping you'd incorporate the comment explaining why the test uses > -f and not -e. You're right. The reason I didn't was because I sent out v2 before seeing your email. Anyway, I'll send out v3 in a second. And thanks for the review, by the way! Cheers,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:23:32AM +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: > "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org> writes: > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:35:00PM +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: > >> I've spent a non-negligible amount of time looking into a kmemleak that > >> didn't exist in the code I was testing because there was an old .kmemleak > >> file in the results directory. I don't think this is an intended behaviour, > >> so I'm proposing to remove these files everytime we capture the result of a > >> new scan. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > >> --- > >> common/rc | 2 ++ > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >> > >> Changes since v1: > >> I realised that _capture_kmemleak() is called with /dev/null as argument, so > >> this version is probably better. > >> > >> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > >> index 741579af82d2..6850889e815e 100644 > >> --- a/common/rc > >> +++ b/common/rc > >> @@ -4433,6 +4433,8 @@ _capture_kmemleak() > >> local kern_knob="$DEBUGFS_MNT/kmemleak" > >> local leak_file="$1" > >> > >> + [ -f "$leak_file" ] && rm -f "$leak_file" > > > > I was hoping you'd incorporate the comment explaining why the test uses > > -f and not -e. > > You're right. The reason I didn't was because I sent out v2 before seeing > your email. Anyway, I'll send out v3 in a second. And thanks for the > review, by the way! aha, ok. --D > Cheers, > -- > Luís > > > > > --D > > > >> + > >> # Tell the kernel to scan for memory leaks. Apparently the write > >> # returns before the scan is complete, so do it twice in the hopes > >> # that twice is enough to capture all the leaks.
diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc index 741579af82d2..6850889e815e 100644 --- a/common/rc +++ b/common/rc @@ -4433,6 +4433,8 @@ _capture_kmemleak() local kern_knob="$DEBUGFS_MNT/kmemleak" local leak_file="$1" + [ -f "$leak_file" ] && rm -f "$leak_file" + # Tell the kernel to scan for memory leaks. Apparently the write # returns before the scan is complete, so do it twice in the hopes # that twice is enough to capture all the leaks.
I've spent a non-negligible amount of time looking into a kmemleak that didn't exist in the code I was testing because there was an old .kmemleak file in the results directory. I don't think this is an intended behaviour, so I'm proposing to remove these files everytime we capture the result of a new scan. Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> --- common/rc | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) Changes since v1: I realised that _capture_kmemleak() is called with /dev/null as argument, so this version is probably better.