From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50AEC433EF for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:52:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229689AbiGKPwa (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:52:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45440 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229808AbiGKPwP (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:52:15 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 733E577A65; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 08:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D759960EBB; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:52:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A596C34115; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:52:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:52:11 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: "Zanussi, Tom" Cc: Zheng Yejian , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, trix@redhat.com, zhangjinhao2@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracing/histograms: Fix memory leak problem Message-ID: <20220711115211.4f613cbe@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <7b562ff6-3f44-053b-d8e6-3c40be145446@linux.intel.com> References: <20220708210335.79a38356@gandalf.local.home> <20220711014731.69520-1-zhengyejian1@huawei.com> <7b562ff6-3f44-053b-d8e6-3c40be145446@linux.intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:27:44 -0500 "Zanussi, Tom" wrote: > So I'm wondering if this means that that the original unnecessary bugfix > was based on a bug in the clang static analyzer or if that would just be > considered a false positive... Good question. I'd like to know this, as if it is the case, I want to report that in my pull request to Linus. -- Steve