[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJAFBLBONBLnMnC3Dq8fad4vAUPJPOjp6+5TEzdUAC=Dq6x7pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:39:38 +0100
From: Fubo Chen <fubo.chen@...il.com>
To: Jose Alonso <joalonsof@...il.com>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Lukasz Dorau <lukasz.dorau@...el.com>,
Maciej Patelczyk <maciej.patelczyk@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] for_each macros correctness
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Jose Alonso <joalonsof@...il.com> wrote:
> I observed that there are for_each macros that do an extra memory access
> beyond the defined area.
> Normally this does not cause problems.
> But, this can cause exceptions. For example: if the area is allocated at
> the end of a page and the next page is not accessible.
>
> For correctness, I suggest changing the arguments of the 'for loop' like
> others 'for_each' do in the kernel.
Does this patch fix a kernel crash when using gcc 4.8 like the patch
in http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/21/146 ?
Thanks,
Fubo.
--
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