lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] slab: Fix a tpyo in commit 8c138b "slab: Get rid of obj_size macro"
    On 07/02/2012 10:29 AM, Feng Tang wrote:
    > Commit 8c138b only sits in Pekka's and linux-next tree now, which tries
    > to replace obj_size(cachep) with cachep->object_size, but has a typo in
    > kmem_cache_free() by using "size" instead of "object_size", which casues
    > some regressions.
    >
    > Reported-and-tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>
    > Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
    > Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
    > ---
    > mm/slab.c | 2 +-
    > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
    >
    > diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
    > index 64c3d03..605b3b7 100644
    > --- a/mm/slab.c
    > +++ b/mm/slab.c
    > @@ -3890,7 +3890,7 @@ void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *cachep, void *objp)
    > unsigned long flags;
    >
    > local_irq_save(flags);
    > - debug_check_no_locks_freed(objp, cachep->size);
    > + debug_check_no_locks_freed(objp, cachep->object_size);
    > if (!(cachep->flags & SLAB_DEBUG_OBJECTS))
    > debug_check_no_obj_freed(objp, cachep->object_size);
    > __cache_free(cachep, objp, __builtin_return_address(0));
    >

    I saw another bug in a patch that ended up not getting in, and was
    reported to Christoph, that was exactly due to a typo between size and
    object-size.

    So first:

    Acked-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>

    But this also means that that confusion can have been made in other
    points. I suggest we take an extensive look into that to make sure there
    aren't more.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-07-02 12:42    [W:0.034 / U:0.120 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site