[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200806231326.11328.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:26:10 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc: "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...nel.org>,
"Srivatsa Vaddagiri" <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
"Mike Travis" <travis@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Gautham R Shenoy" <ego@...ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@...el.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: v2.6.26-rc7: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference
On Monday 23 June 2008 02:29:07 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> And the (cpu < nr_cpu_ids) fails because the CPU has just been
> offlined (or failed to initialize, but it's the same thing), while
> NR_CPUS is the value that was compiled in as CONFIG_NR_CPUS (so the
> former check will always be true).
>
> I don't think it is valid to ask for a per_cpu() variable on a CPU
> which does not exist, though
Yes it is. As long as cpu_possible(cpu), per_cpu(cpu) is valid.
The number check should be removed: checking cpu_possible() is sufficient.
Hope that helps,
Rusty.
--
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