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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans