On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Thomas.
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:38:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I can grumpily accept the patch below as a quick hack fix, which can
> > go to stable as well, but not with such a patently misleading
> > changelog.
> >
> > The changelog wants to document, that this is not a proper fix at all
> > and just a quick hack which can be nonintrusively applied to stable.
>
> I'm not sure about what type timer_t can be but if it can actually be
> u64 as Andrew suggests, we probably want a different test guarding it.
>
> > > Note that the previous code was theoretically broken. idr_find()
> > > masked off the sign bit before performing lookup and if the matching
> > > IDs were in use, it would have returned pointer for the incorrect
> > > entry.
> >
> > Brilliant code that. What's the purpose of having the idr id as an
> > "int" and then masking off the sign bit instead of simply refusing
> > negative id values in the idr code itself or simply making the id
> > "unsigned int" ?
>
> Beats me. The code has been like that since the beginning. One of
> the many oddities of idr implementation. Patch to remove MAX_IDR_MASK
> is already queued in -mm w/ other idr updates.
Missed that, but good to know that this insanity is going to be gone
soon.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
