On 2 December 2015 at 10:56, Michael Wang <yun.w...@profitbricks.com> wrote: > On 12/02/2015 11:52 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> Is there any more concern? actually we just want to get rid of this >>> annoying report on obj won't leak, if you're going to create obj for >>> 'irq_lookup_table' that's also fine for us, or will you pick this patch? >> >> My preference (from a kmemleak perspective) is to tell kmemleak about >> the irq_lookup_table. Untested: > > I'm fine with both solution, will leave the decision to maintainer :-) > > BTW, could you please send a formal patch with descriptions?
I could copy your description but I don't currently have a way (nor time) to test the patch. If you plan to test it anyway, please feel free to include my diff (which I guess was badly re-formatted by gmail), I don't really mind which author it is (I found it easier to show a diff than explain in plain English ;)). -- Catalin _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
