[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170220133914.GQ6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:39:14 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, davem@...emloft.net,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
hpa@...or.com, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: convert debug_info.ref_count from atomic_t to
refcount_t
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 02:24:24PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 01:06:18PM +0200, Elena Reshetova wrote:
> > @@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ debug_info_create(const char *name, int pages_per_area, int nr_areas,
> > debug_area_last = rc;
> > rc->next = NULL;
> >
> > - debug_info_get(rc);
> > + refcount_set(&rc->ref_count, 1);
>
> This is not wrong, but I will remove this hunk before applying your patch,
> since this doesn't look like an obvious correct change at first glance.
I suspect; but have not looked at the code; that this would otherwise
attempt to do a 0 -> 1 increment, which refcount_inc() will refuse (and
WARN) over.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists