[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y6VlA8Mbbv7Ug6tW@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 00:21:23 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm: vmalloc: Switch to find_unlink_vmap_area() in
vm_unmap_ram()
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 08:00:21PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2252,7 +2252,7 @@ void vm_unmap_ram(const void *mem, unsigned int count)
> return;
> }
>
> - va = find_vmap_area(addr);
> + va = find_unlink_vmap_area(addr);
> BUG_ON(!va);
> debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)va->va_start,
> (va->va_end - va->va_start));
Don't we also need to remove the manual unlink that was done
here previously? Actually it seems like that manual unlink is missing
after patch 1, creating a bisection hazard. So either add it there,
or just fold this patch into the previous one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists