[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47B92D47.2050008@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:31:27 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
CC: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] memcgroup: fix typo in VM_BUG_ON()
Li Zefan wrote:
> Balbir Singh wrote:
>> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>>>> Li Zefan wrote:
>>>>> No need for VM_BUG_ON(pc), since 'pc' is the list entry. This should
>>>>> be VM_BUG_ON(page).
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>>>> pc is of type page_cgroup and we use list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse. Not sure
>>>> why we can't bug on pc.
>>> pc is dereferenced before this VM_BUG_ON.
>>>
>>> YAMAMOTO Takashi
>>>
>> OK, so the VM_BUG_ON needs to move to an earlier location. Agreed.
>>
>
> No, 'pc' has been dereferenced in list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse().
>
>
> #define list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(pos, n, head, member) \
> for (pos = list_entry((head)->prev, typeof(*pos), member), \
> n = list_entry(pos->member.prev, typeof(*pos), member); \
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> &pos->member != (head); \
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> pos = n, n = list_entry(n->member.prev, typeof(*n), member))
>
Hmm.. We used to have a for loop with !list_empty() as a termination condition
and VM_BUG_ON(!pc) is a spill over. With the new loop, VM_BUG_ON(!pc) does not
make sense.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists