lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] core kernel fixes
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> diff --git a/lib/debugobjects.c b/lib/debugobjects.c
> index a76a5e1..85b18d7 100644
> --- a/lib/debugobjects.c
> +++ b/lib/debugobjects.c
> @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ static int fill_pool(void)
> {
> gfp_t gfp = GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN;
> struct debug_obj *new;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> if (likely(obj_pool_free >= ODEBUG_POOL_MIN_LEVEL))
> return obj_pool_free;
> @@ -81,10 +82,10 @@ static int fill_pool(void)
> if (!new)
> return obj_pool_free;
>
> - spin_lock(&pool_lock);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pool_lock, flags);
> hlist_add_head(&new->node, &obj_pool);
> obj_pool_free++;
> - spin_unlock(&pool_lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool_lock, flags);
> }
> return obj_pool_free;
> }
> @@ -110,16 +111,13 @@ static struct debug_obj *lookup_object(void *addr, struct debug_bucket *b)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Allocate a new object. If the pool is empty and no refill possible,
> - * switch off the debugger.
> + * Allocate a new object. If the pool is empty, switch off the debugger.
> */
> static struct debug_obj *
> alloc_object(void *addr, struct debug_bucket *b, struct debug_obj_descr *descr)
> {
> struct debug_obj *obj = NULL;
> - int retry = 0;
>
> -repeat:
> spin_lock(&pool_lock);
> if (obj_pool.first) {
> obj = hlist_entry(obj_pool.first, typeof(*obj), node);
> @@ -141,9 +139,6 @@ repeat:
> }
> spin_unlock(&pool_lock);
>
> - if (fill_pool() && !obj && !retry++)
> - goto repeat;
> -
> return obj;
> }
>
> @@ -261,6 +256,8 @@ __debug_object_init(void *addr, struct debug_obj_descr *descr, int onstack)
> struct debug_obj *obj;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> + fill_pool();
> +
> db = get_bucket((unsigned long) addr);
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&db->lock, flags);
> --

Hm. I have to wonder where this patch came from.

This was my (faulty) patch: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/14/193
and Daniel J Blueman followed up with this: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/15/27

..but this one looks different from both. I am guessing the last bits
were added (or removed?) by Thomas?

I am wondering if the final patch was tested with the reproducible
test case (if so, by whom?) and whether should be credited to Daniel
(or Thomas?) instead...

?


Vegard

--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-30 19:05    [W:0.068 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site