>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:[email protected]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:55 AM
>>To: Menon, Nishanth; Gopinath, Thara
>>Cc: linux-omap; Artem Bityutskiy; Peter p2 De Schrijver
>>Subject: Re: [PM-SR][PATCH 1/2 v2] omap3: sr: fix memory leak and simplify 
>>the code
>>
>>Nishanth Menon <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> From: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> This patch fixes the following problem indicated by kmemleak:
>>>
>>> kmemleak: unreferenced object 0xdf93c280 (size 64):
>>> kmemleak:   backtrace:
>>> kmemleak:     [<c00df6d4>] create_object+0x104/0x200
>>> kmemleak:     [<c00d7638>] kmem_cache_alloc+0xe4/0xf4
>>> kmemleak:     [<c000fc38>] omap_devinit_smartreflex+0x44/0x244
>>> kmemleak:     [<c003a33c>] do_one_initcall+0x5c/0x1b8
>>> kmemleak:     [<c00083fc>] kernel_init+0x94/0x110
>>> kmemleak:     [<c003ba04>] kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8
>>>
>>> The reason is that 'omap_devinit_smartreflex()' allocates 'sr_data',
>>> then passes it to 'omap_device_build()', which 'kmemdup()'s it and
>>> uses the copy. But 'omap_devinit_smartreflex()' never frees 'sr_data'.
>>>
>>> This patch make 'sr_data' to be a stack variable, which eliminates
>>> the memory leak and simplifies the code a bit.
>>>
>>> Cc: Kevin Hilman <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Thara Gopinath <[email protected]>,
>>> Cc: Peter p2 De Schrijver <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Nishanth Menon <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
>>> Acked-by: Nishanth Menon <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> Changes from V1:
>>>     rebased to latest pm-sr branch
>>>     default of sr_data set to 0 to make it equivalent to kzalloc
>>>
>>> NOTE: this probably should be squashed when being send upstream along with
>>> rest of SR series
>>
>>Thara, you appear to have fixed this problem differently in your latest
>>series.  Looks like you just ensured kfree() was always done, correct?
>>
>>In the future, it would be helpful if you would reply to these proposed
>>fixes on the list so we know if they are incorporated or handled
>>differently.

Yes.. you r correct.. I missed replying on this one. Sorry for the confusion.
Will take care of this in future.
It is indeed fixed by ensuring kfree() always.

Regards,
Thara
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to