[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <op.vj3pcnag7p4s8u@pikus>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:39:49 +0200
From: Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
To: Evgeny Kuznetsov <EXT-Eugeny.Kuznetsov@...ia.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, gregkh@...e.de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
xiaosuo@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] wait: using uninitialized member of wait queue
> On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 12:41 +0200, ext Michał Nazarewicz wrote:
>> (Interestingly, init_wait() is used only in 3 places in the kernel and
>> none uses flags.)
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:00:38 +0200, Evgeny Kuznetsov <EXT-Eugeny.Kuznetsov@...ia.com> wrote:
> 'wait_queue_t' is passed to prepare_to_wait() function where 'flags' is
> used, e.g:
> File: /mm/mempool.c
> void * mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> { .....
> .....
> init_wait(&wait);
> prepare_to_wait(&pool->wait, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> .....
> }
I meant that none of the callers initialized flags. I was initially concerned
whether some caller that used init_wait() could set flags and expect that they
won't be changed by the call to init_wait() -- this turned out not to be the
case.
So essentially, I'm supporting your point. Sorry about the confusion.
--
Best regards, _ _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science, Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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