linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/25] lmb: Factor the lowest level alloc function

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1273616649.21352.44.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Wed, 12 May 2010 08:24:09 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...uxtronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
	lethal@...ux-sh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/25] lmb: Factor the lowest level alloc function

On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 14:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > @@ -396,33 +406,24 @@ u64 __init __lmb_alloc_base(u64 size, u64
> align, u64 max_addr)
> >       if (max_addr == LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE)
> >               max_addr = LMB_REAL_LIMIT;
> >  
> > +     /* Pump up max_addr */
> > +     if (max_addr == LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE)
> > +             max_addr = ~(u64)0;
> > +     
> 
>   That if is pretty useless as you set max_addr to LMB_REAL_LIMIT
>   right above.

This is a mismerge/mis-rebase of one of my patches actually. I'll dbl
check what's up but I think the first hunk should go along with
LMB_REAL_LIMIT in favor of the new default limit thing. But we first
need to make sure the default is set sensibly and I haven't fixed all
archs yet.

I'll dbl check what's up there.

Cheers,
Benm.


--
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/