From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239A41F953 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 21:49:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237381AbhJZVvQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 17:51:16 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:47450 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235831AbhJZVvP (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 17:51:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 10706 invoked by uid 109); 26 Oct 2021 21:48:48 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 21:48:48 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 14262 invoked by uid 111); 26 Oct 2021 21:48:48 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 17:48:48 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 17:48:47 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH] leak tests: add an interface to the LSAN_OPTIONS "suppressions" Message-ID: References: <211022.86sfwtl6uj.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:30:47PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > Bugs aside, I'd much rather see UNLEAK() annotations than external ones, > > for all the reasons we introduced UNLEAK() in the first place: > > > > - it keeps the annotations near the code. Yes, that creates conflicts > > when the code is changed (or the leak is actually fixed), but that's > > a feature. It keeps them from going stale. > > I agree completely. I noted as much in my message here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/YXJAfICQN8s5Gm7s@nand.local/ > > but Ævar made it sound like his work would be made much easier without > the conflict. Since I'm not in any kind of rush to make t5319 leak-free, > I figured that queueing the parts of that series that wouldn't conflict > with Ævar's ongoing work would be a net-positive. Yeah, to be clear, if there's work in progress in an area, then _not_ annotating it (with either method) is perfectly fine with me in the meantime. -Peff