Re: [PULL] param sysfs oops (simple, leaky) fix, bool arrays fix

[Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@nokia.com>]

On 06/05/10 04:28 +0200, ext Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2010 06:19:29 pm Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > Fixing in the way of the later upstream is a bit too intrusive as a
> > > stable patch.  So, I'm also not sure whether we should take it,
> > > too...
> > 
> > To be frank I do not really understand what you mean.
> > 
> > Anyway, I just humbly suggest not to have the "no one uses that, let's
> > have a leak" attitude. I do understand that this is a 'it's a lot of
> > churn for not much gain'. However, I think the rmmod leak is large
> > enough issue.
> 
> Thanks Artem, that's exactly the kind of feedback we need.
> 
> For most people, module parameters are rare, and module removal is rare.
> So the amount of leak is less than the size of the code we would add to fix
> it.
> 
> If this is hitting you, it clearly changes the priorities.  I will include
> the patches now.

Rusty,

Artem's passed the baton over to me to investigate, so I've reviewed
and back-ported the last known version of your patchset. I'm happy to 
report that the 100% reproducable leak that we were seeing before
cannot be reproduced. As expected, given review of the code. I have 
not been able to test the final driver-specific patches from your 
patchset, but up to and including

[PATCH 12/18] param: simple locking for sysfs-writable charp parameters

they can all have a:

Tested-by: Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@nokia.com>

I'm quite interested to see these pushed into the mainline so that I
can cherry-pick final versions for our internal tree, do you have any 
schedule for that?

Cheers,
Phil