[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <511214A3.6060201@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:30:27 +0800
From: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: Shuah Khan <shuah.khan@...com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
yinghai@...nel.org, wency@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, shuahkhan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] x86/mm: Fix compile warning in remove_pagetable()
On 02/06/2013 04:27 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Shuah Khan wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
>> index 67bad4b..ed78400 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
>> @@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ remove_pud_table(pud_t *pud_start, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>> static void __meminit
>> remove_pagetable(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool direct)
>> {
>> - unsigned long next;
>> + unsigned long next = pgd_addr_end(start, end);
>> pgd_t *pgd;
>> pud_t *pud;
>> bool pgd_changed = false;
>
> This isn't enough, there's a potential for an infinite loop if
> !pgd_present() is ever true in the iteration since "next" remains
> constant. Theoretical, maybe.
>
> I think it's better to just set next before checking for !pgd_present() in
> the iteration so it's clear what's happening.
Yes, Andrew's patch just fixed it like this. :)
Thanks. :)
> Or, even better, change
> this into the standard do-while loop that everything else uses.
>
--
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