Linus Torvalds wrote:
has been incorrectly translated for several reasons:
- we shouldn't check "cachep->num > offslab_limit". We should check just
"num > offslab_limit" (cachep->num is the _previous_ number we tested).
- when we do "break", we've already incremented "gfporder", and we should
correct for that.
Now, maybe I'm just off my rocker again (I've certainly been batting 0.000
so far, even if I think I've been finding real bugs). So who knows. But I
get the feeling that that patch is broken.
I thought stumbling over bugs while looking for other things was part of
the new development model ;-)
Either revert it, or try this (TOTALLY UNTESTED!!!) patch..
And hey, maybe I'm just crazy.
Being crazy and being right are not mutually exclusize.
--
-bill davidsen ([email protected])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
