Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:02:51 +0200 | From | "Vegard Nossum" <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |