Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:40:05 -0500 | From | Georg Nikodym <> | Subject | Re: v2.4.19-rmk4 slab.c: /proc/slabinfo uses broken instead of slab labels |
| |
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:15:17 -0500 Georg Nikodym <georgn@somanetworks.com> wrote:
> 1. Is the ARM __get_user() broken? > 2. Could I be doing something else broken that is confusing __get_user()? > 3. What was/is the intent of the test? Or stated differently, why on earth > would cachep->name be a user address?
In answer to my own question, reading the 2.5 source was illuminating. The intent of the test is obvious:
akpm 1.50 | /* akpm 1.50 | * Check to see if `name' resides inside a module which has been akpm 1.50 | * unloaded (someone forgot to destroy their cache) akpm 1.50 | */
Thanks to Mr. Morton for that comment. Now I get to wrestle with questions 1 and 2.
-g [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |