[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090415122532.0a0c5f24.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:25:32 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john@...nmccutchan.com,
rlove@...ve.org, eparis@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix inconsistent lock state in inotify
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:59:29 +0200
Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com> wrote:
> >> +++ b/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c
> >> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static struct inotify_kernel_event * kernel_event(s32 wd, u32 mask, u32 cookie,
> >> rem = 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - kevent->name = kmalloc(len + rem, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + kevent->name = kmalloc(len + rem, GFP_NOFS);
> >> if (unlikely(!kevent->name)) {
> >> kmem_cache_free(event_cachep, kevent);
> >> return NULL;
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > This is in fact a false positive and we plan to fix it via lockdep
> > annotation.
>
> Well, I trust you on the "false positive", but a few line before there this:
>
> kevent = kmem_cache_alloc(event_cachep, GFP_NOFS);
>
> so can kmem_cache_alloc also use GFP_KERNEL?
Yes, it looks that way.
umm, I think I'll merge your original patch as a reminder-to-self.
If the problem doesn't get fixed in a better way for 2.6.30 then I
might end up going with the GFP_NOFS approach.
But it's bad to weaken the memory allocation mode just to plug a lockdep
warning.
--
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