Re: [PATCH 0/3] kmemleak report format changes

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 05:19:38PM -0700, jim.cromie@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:25 AM Catalin Marinas
> <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 04:24:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > > If format changes are not /sys/** ABI violating, heres 3 minor ones:
> > >
> > > 1st strips "age <increasing>" from output.  This makes the output
> > > idempotent; unchanging until a new leak is reported.
> > >
> > > 2nd adds the backtrace.checksum to the "backtrace:" line.  This lets a
> > > user see repeats without actually reading the whole backtrace.  So now
> > > the backtrace line looks like this:
> > >
> > >   backtrace (ck 603070071):  # also see below
> > >
> > > Q: should ck be spelled crc ? it feels more communicative.
> >
> > These all would make sense (and 'crc' sounds better) if they were done
> > from the start. I know there are test scripts out there parsing the
> > kmemleak sysfs file. I can't tell whether these changes would break
> > them.
> >
> > Cc'ing Dmitry, I think syzbot was regularly checking kmemleak (not sure
> > it still does).
[...]
> QED: there are no kmemleak parsers in public github repos that would
> break with these changes

Thanks for digging into this, I completely forgot about this series.
Would you mind rebasing to the latest kernel and reposting?

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin