Dear All,
Ok, likely a sort of flag has to be added in the "mtest01.c"
code.....something like that:
mem_flag=0;
....................
if((mem = (char*)malloc(chunksize)) == NULL) {
.......
exit(1)
}
mem_flag=1:
.......
in order to understand if the malloc() has been executed or not.....and
then the patch will be:
if ((mem_flag==1)&&(mem != NULL))
{
free(mem);
mem_flag=0;
}
Without a patch as above (or like that), in the code of "mtest01" we
got scenarios (mainly in the cross architectures like embedded systems)
in which the LTP run a "malloc()" without "free()".
This is always wrong even though the system resource is enough to cover
this memory consumption.
Regards
--
FR
Subrata Modak wrote:
Garrett,
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 18:10 -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Jan 4, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Francesco RUNDO <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi All,
I'm running LTP (I'm using ltp-full-20090731....but asap I will
upgrade to latest) on SH based platforms.
Now, during a test-session. I've noted that the test "mtest01"
reduced drastically the system memory and after its execution this
memory wasn't de-allocated.
I've analysed the mtest01.c code and I've noted that no "free()"
istruction was associated to the related malloc:
......
if((mem = (char*)malloc(chunksize)) == NULL) {
......
I've simply added a "free(mem)" of the allocated memory and the
issue was addressed successfully.
I've attached the trivial patch I've developed.
Best Regards,
--
Francesco
Added missed "free" istruction to release memory previosuly allocated.
Signed-off-by: Francesco Rundo <[email protected]>
--- ltp-full-20090731/testcases/kernel/mem/mtest01/
mtest01.c.origin 2009-02-26 13:02:27.000000000 +0100
+++ ltp-full-20090731/testcases/kernel/mem/mtest01/mtest01.c
2009-12-15 14:03:28.779240000 +0100
@@ -258,5 +258,8 @@
else
tst_resm(TPASS, "%llu kbytes allocated only.",
original_maxbytes/1024);
}
+
+ free(mem);
+
exit(0);
}
1. Does the version off cvs still have this issue?
2. Unless the test exits the code block immediately, I'd definitely do:
if (mem)
free (mem);
to avoid making a bad free call.
Have you made any changes to this ? I do not see any commits.
Regards--
Subrata
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support
A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy
Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support
A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy
Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
