[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140430143259.022534b79b01c5234df79dc7@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:32:59 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
sandeen@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
mpatlasov@...allels.com, Motohiro.Kosaki@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mm,writeback: fix divide by zero in
pos_ratio_polynom
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:42:55 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:13:53 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > This was a consequence of 64->32 truncation and it can't happen any
> > more, can it?
>
> Andrew, this is cleaner indeed :)
>
> Masayoshi-san, does the bug still happen with this version, or does
> this fix the problem?
I assumed we wanted a reported-by in there.
> Subject: mm,writeback: fix divide by zero in pos_ratio_polynom
>
> It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, after
> getting truncated to a 32 bit variable, and resulting in a divide
> by zero error.
>
> Using the fully 64 bit divide functions avoids this problem.
This isn't the whole story, is it? I added stuff:
: Using the fully 64 bit divide functions avoids this problem. It also will
: cause pos_ratio_polynom() to return the correct value when (setpoint -
: limit) exceeds 2^32.
--
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