[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGM2reaqf4y4kb1jC+_vgG8mGRwaV_o75eMXTxWjZB3tWOM+KA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:00:11 -0400
From: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, mingo@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Dennis Zhou <dennisszhou@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [v1] mm: access to uninitialized struct page
Hi Steven,
Thank you for your review:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/18/797
>
> #2, Do not use "lkml.org" it is a very unreliable source.
>
OK
> I'm fine with this change, but what happens if mm_init() traps?
>
> But that is probably not a case we really care about, as it is in the
> very early boot stage.
Yes, the assumption is that we do not trap in mm_init(), which I think
is the case because of early boot, and also I did not see this happen
during testing.
>
>>
>> ftrace_init();
>>
>
> One thing I could add is to move ftrace_init() before trap_init(). But
> that may require some work, because it may still depend on trap_init()
> as well. But making ftrace_init() not depend on trap_init() is easier
> than making it not depend on ftrace_init(). Although it may require
> more arch updates.
>
> I'm not saying that you should move it, it's something that can be
> added later after this change is implemented.
This makes, sense, but should be done outside of this bug fix.
>
> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>
Thank you. I will send out an updated patch.
Pavel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists