[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080422164615.GG24536@duo.random>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:46:15 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01 of 12] Core of mmu notifiers
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:37:38PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I am saying your intent was probably to test
>
> else if ((unsigned long)*(spinlock_t **)a ==
> (unsigned long)*(spinlock_t **)b)
> return 0;
Indeed...
> Hum, it's not a micro-optimization, but a bug fix. :)
The good thing is that even if this bug would lead to a system crash,
it would be still zero risk for everybody that isn't using KVM/GRU
actively with mmu notifiers. The important thing is that this patch
has zero risk to introduce regressions into the kernel, both when
enabled and disabled, it's like a new driver. I'll shortly resend 1/12
and likely 12/12 for theoretical correctness. For now you can go ahead
testing with this patch as it'll work fine despite of the bug (if it
wasn't the case I would have noticed already ;).
--
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