[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <484256AA.3000709@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 10:58:34 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cooloney@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mpm@...enic.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nommu: fix kobjsize() for SLOB and SLUB
Hi Paul,
Paul Mundt wrote:
> Not until the page->index bits are killed, otherwise you aren't fixing
> anything. SLOB on nommu with those page->index tests will automatically
> oops today, before or after your patches. Until that's resolved, there's
> no point in pretending like kobjsize() has been "fixed". As no one has
> come up with a valid reason for those tests existing in the first place,
> simply having your patches and killing the BUG_ON()'s seems ok.
Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but can you explain
why removing the ->index bits are safe? I mean, if removing them is
really okay, that means we don't hit that code path with SLAB at all?
Paul Mundt wrote:
> If we're not going to kill the BUG_ON()'s, then your patches are purely
> cosmetic fixups with no behavioural change -- (ie, nommu is still hosed
> on SLOB with current git).
It fixes nommu with SLUB, doesn't it?
Pekka
--
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