On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:25:07 -0500 > [email protected] wrote: > >> From: KOSAKI Motohiro <[email protected]> >> >> Currently, n_new is wrongly initialized. start and end parameter >> are inverted. Let's fix it. >> >> ... >> >> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c >> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c >> @@ -2390,7 +2390,7 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy >> *sp, unsigned long start, >> >> *mpol_new = *n->policy; >> atomic_set(&mpol_new->refcnt, 1); >> - sp_node_init(n_new, n->end, end, mpol_new); >> + sp_node_init(n_new, end, n->end, mpol_new); >> n->end = start; >> sp_insert(sp, n_new); >> n_new = NULL; > > huh. What were the runtime effects of this problem?
I think passed policy don't effect correctly. No big issue because nobody uses route except Dave Jones testcase. (remember, until very recently, this route has kernel crash bug and nobody have been hit.) -- 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/
