On Mon, 21 May 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, sounded the same to me too: I couldn't reproduce it or see anything
> > > wrong in the code back then. But Srihari's info about CONFIG_DEBUG_SLUB
> > > off has helped a lot: I was then able to reproduce it on my x86_64, and
> > > after a lot of staring at the code, the problem became obvious...
> >
> > Right. The #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG is at the wrong location. The best fix
> > is to moving the #ifdef otherwise the size is still wrong for the
> > ctor case.
>
> ? My patch did handle the ctor case.
True. I was thinking about just checking the problem case that we had
here.
> > SLUB Debug: Fix object size calculation
> >
> > The object size calculation is wrong if !CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG because
> > the #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG is now switching off the size adjustments
> > for DESTROY_BY_RCU and ctor.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
>
> Yes, I think that should do it too. The reason behind my repeating
> the block was to handle the case where SLAB_POISON is passed to
> kmem_cache_create, but CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG is off. But apparently
> that case would hit the BUG_ON(flags & ~CREATE_MASK), therefore
> your patch is simpler and better. Quite a maze.
Would you ack my patch? I do not want to repeat the block.
-
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]
