[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190523120754.4e2wak7mn7t3wfkz@pc636>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 14:07:54 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm/vmap: move BUG_ON() check to the unlink_va()
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:19:16AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2019 17:09:39 +0200 "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Move the BUG_ON()/RB_EMPTY_NODE() check under unlink_va()
> > function, it means if an empty node gets freed it is a BUG
> > thus is considered as faulty behaviour.
>
> So... this is an expansion of the assertion's coverage?
>
I would say it is rather moving BUG() and RB_EMPTY_NODE() check
under unlink_va(). We used to have BUG_ON() and it is still there
but now inlined. So it is not about assertion's coverage.
--
Vlad Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists