From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: ftrace/perf_event leak Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 19:32:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20100901173253.GC23357@elte.hu> References: <4C7E11E5.1040402@redhat.com> <1283331868.2059.808.camel@laptop> <4C7E1C36.6070400@redhat.com> <4C7E1F12.8030304@cn.fujitsu.com> <4C7E2D1D.3080603@redhat.com> <1283338977.2059.938.camel@laptop> <20100901121518.GA5378@nowhere> <1283349585.2356.1.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra , Avi Kivity , Li Zefan , kvm-devel , Linux Kernel Mailing List To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1283349585.2356.1.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org * Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 14:15 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > Thanks for fixing this. > > > > However, can we split this in two patches to ease the backport? > > > > The lack of a module_put() after perf_trace_init() failure is there for a while > > (the backport needs to start in 2.6.32). > > > > But the lack of a module_put in the destroy path needs a .35 backport only. > > I don't think it really needs two patches. Just notify stable (and > Greg KH in particular) about the backport requirements. Greg can > handle it ;) Well, Greg certainly has more than enough to handle, so if there's different chunks with different -stable vectors then it would be most helpful to him to split things up! Manually trying to split up patches is both error-prone and stress-inducing. Thanks, Ingo