On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 02:06:10PM +0300, Purdila, Octavian wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Ram Pai <linux...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wait.. I am not sure this will fix the problem entirely. The above check
> > will handle the case where the range requested is entirey out of the
> > root's range. But if the requested range overlapps that of the root
> > range, we will still call __reserve_region_with_split() and end up with
> > a recursion if there is a overflow. Wont we?
> >
>
> Good catch. I will fix this as well as address Andrew's and Joe's
> comments in a new patch. The only question is how to handle the
> overlap case:
>
> (a) abort the whole request or
>
> (b) try to reserve the part that overlaps (and adjust the request to
> avoid the overflow)
>
> I think (b) is more in line with the current implementation for reservations.
I prefer (b). following patch should handle that.
diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
index e1d2b8e..dd87fde 100644
--- a/kernel/resource.c
+++ b/kernel/resource.c
@@ -780,6 +780,10 @@ static void __init __reserve_region_with_split(struct
resource *root,
if (conflict->start > start)
__reserve_region_with_split(root, start, conflict->start-1,
name);
+
+ if (conflict->end == parent->end )
+ return;
+
if (conflict->end < end)
__reserve_region_with_split(root, conflict->end+1, end, name);
}
RP
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
