[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y6XaTM+xSlGNjo0e@pc636>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 17:41:48 +0100
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
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>,
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.
>
Right. In terms of bisection it is not so good. I think folding is the
best.
Andrew, could you please fold this patch into the:
[PATCH v3 1/3] mm: vmalloc: Avoid calling __find_vmap_area() twice in __vunmap() ?
or should i send a v4 instead?
Thank you in advance!
--
Uladzislau Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists