On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:03:43AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 07-02-17 02:37:02, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > From a quick check I do not see any leak there either. > > > > Then in that case what about: > > This just disables the kmemleak altogether which doesn't sound like a > good idea to me.
Only for this case, but if that is also not desirable let us debug further. That or I think we could perhaps massage code to make it clearer to kmemleak things are good. Luis
