Re: [PATCH 1/2] slab, kmemleak, minor, stop calling kmemleak_erase() unconditionally

[Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>]

Catalin Marinas wrote:
> "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
>> When the gotten object is NULL (probably due to ENOMEM),
>> kmemleak_erase() is unnecessary here, It just sets NULL to where already
>> is NULL.
>> Add a condition.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp>
>> ---
>>  mm/slab.c |    3 ++-
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
>> index 7dfa481..4e61449 100644
>> --- a/mm/slab.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab.c
>> @@ -3109,7 +3109,8 @@ static inline void *____cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
>>  	 * per-CPU caches is leaked, we need to make sure kmemleak doesn't
>>  	 * treat the array pointers as a reference to the object.
>>  	 */
>> -	kmemleak_erase(&ac->entry[ac->avail]);
>> +	if (objp)
>> +		kmemleak_erase(&ac->entry[ac->avail]);
>>  	return objp;
>>  }
> 
> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

Applied, thanks!