Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:13:05 -0500 (EST) | From | Nicolas Pitre <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ARM: Fix find_next_zero_bit and related assembly |
| |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, James Jones wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 November 2010 11:00:12 am Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > On 11/23/2010 03:28 PM, James Jones wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 13:26:47 Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, James Jones wrote: > > > >>> The find_next_bit, find_first_bit, find_next_zero_bit > > > >>> and find_first_zero_bit functions were not properly > > > >>> clamping to the maxbit argument at the bit level. They > > > >>> were instead only checking maxbit at the byte level. > > > >>> To fix this, add a compare and a conditional move > > > >>> instruction to the end of the common bit-within-the- > > > >>> byte code used by all the functions and be sure not to > > > >>> clobber the maxbit argument before it is used. > > > >>> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: James Jones <jajones@nvidia.com> > > > >>> Tested-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > > > >> > > > >> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> > > > >> > > > >> Please send to RMK's patch system. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review. It's already in the patch system, but I updated > > > > the entry to include your reviewed-by line. > > > > > > Should this be sent to the stable tree too? > > > > It could, yes. This is hardly an urgent fix though, as the bug has been > > there virtually forever. > > > > > > Nicolas > > While ancient, it does cause per-cpu allocations to fail in some situations, > which generally causes panics.
That would be a good justification for the stable tree then.
Nicolas
| |