On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 11:54:12AM +0800, Patrick Wang wrote:
diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
index a182f5ddaf68..1e9e0aa93ae5 100644
--- a/mm/kmemleak.c
+++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
@@ -172,6 +172,8 @@ struct kmemleak_object {
#define OBJECT_NO_SCAN (1 << 2)
/* flag set to fully scan the object when scan_area allocation failed */
#define OBJECT_FULL_SCAN (1 << 3)
+/* flag set for object allocated with physical address */
+#define OBJECT_PHYS (1 << 4)
#define HEX_PREFIX " "
/* number of bytes to print per line; must be 16 or 32 */
@@ -575,7 +577,8 @@ static int __save_stack_trace(unsigned long *trace)
* memory block and add it to the object_list and object_tree_root.
*/
static struct kmemleak_object *create_object(unsigned long ptr, size_t size,
- int min_count, gfp_t gfp)
+ int min_count, gfp_t gfp,
+ bool is_phys)
The patch looks fine but I wonder whether we should have different
functions for is_phys true/false, we may end up fewer changes overall
since most places simply pass is_phys == false:
static struct kmemleak_object *__create_object(unsigned long ptr, size_t size,
int min_count, gfp_t gfp,
bool is_phys);
static struct kmemleak_object *create_object(unsigned long ptr, size_t size,
int min_count, gfp_t gfp)
{
return __create_object(ptr, size, min_count, gfp, false);
}
static struct kmemleak_object *create_object_phys(unsigned long ptr, size_t size,
int min_count, gfp_t gfp)
{
return __create_object(ptr, size, min_count, gfp, true);
}
Same for the other patches that change a few more functions.