lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-24 20:15    [W:0.046 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site