From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ruben@mrbrklyn.com (Ruben Safir)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:22:14 -0400
Subject: Safety in Kernel Development
In-Reply-To: <CAK7rcp8wjX7JKxUhueGacJskp2cRbQ668rL9qvQgTfih6yFQiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK7rcp93Jvy73RxDLKnMgMBoiYz75P5pii6v=nXhZhWEArrRmw@mail.gmail.com>	<alpine.LFD.2.20.1508180940100.13331@localhost>	<CAK7rcp93ozRVo0FxRCyoUuXrW_Z6_kJiwMKeZGQt3CMU64PNZw@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+KS1ka8F8pzR=5MB0yRf_Re-ffNVQT0bWUdr5d5S+HgE+9SRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK7rcp8wjX7JKxUhueGacJskp2cRbQ668rL9qvQgTfih6yFQiw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55D3B016.3010406@mrbrklyn.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

On 08/18/2015 10:03 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller wrote:
> @leo If kmemleak is not a language based approach, I ardently question the
> completeness of such a verification.


this is not a rational approach