Re: [PATCH] leak tests: add an interface to the LSAN_OPTIONS "suppressions"

> > Bugs aside, I'd much rather see UNLEAK() annotations than external ones,
> > for all the reasons we introduced UNLEAK() in the first place:
> >
> >   - it keeps the annotations near the code. Yes, that creates conflicts
> >     when the code is changed (or the leak is actually fixed), but that's
> >     a feature. It keeps them from going stale.
> 
> I agree completely. I noted as much in my message here:
> 
>     https://lore.kernel.org/git/YXJAfICQN8s5Gm7s@nand.local/
> 
> but Ævar made it sound like his work would be made much easier without
> the conflict. Since I'm not in any kind of rush to make t5319 leak-free,
> I figured that queueing the parts of that series that wouldn't conflict
> with Ævar's ongoing work would be a net-positive.