From: Allen Pais
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:02:15 +0530
> Signed-off-by: Allen Pais
This is quite pointless as the caller doesn't do anything with
the value, it just tests whether a negative value is returned
or not.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
th
From: David Miller
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 11:28:54 -0400 (EDT)
>
> On sparc, if we have an alloca() like situation, as is the case with
> SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(), we can end up referencing deallocated stack
> memory. The result can be that the value is clobbered if a trap
> or in
From: David Miller
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:39:06 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Darrick J. Wong"
> Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:08:08 -0700
>
>> ext4/jbd2's crc32c implementations will also need a fix like this for
>> {ext4,jbd2}_chksum. Note that both of these module
From: "Darrick J. Wong"
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:08:08 -0700
> ext4/jbd2's crc32c implementations will also need a fix like this for
> {ext4,jbd2}_chksum. Note that both of these modules call the crypto api
> directly to avoid a static dependence on libcrc32c; this was done to
> reduce kernel fo
On sparc, if we have an alloca() like situation, as is the case with
SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(), we can end up referencing deallocated stack
memory. The result can be that the value is clobbered if a trap
or interrupt arrives at just the right instruction.
It only occurs if the function ends returnin
From: David Sterba
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:40:37 +0200
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 01:03:56AM +0200, Sébastien Bernard wrote:
>> Then, after writing on the disk, I got a lot of warning:
>> [ 822.515875] Kernel unaligned access at TPC[103c2204]
>>
>> I peeked a look at the btrf_csum_final and he
From: Christian Kujau
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 22:28:47 -0800 (PST)
> Hm, now it looks like this, but I don't know how it'd reveal more
> information:
>
> [ 210.707051] Kernel unaligned access at TPC[10101f18]
> btrfs_csum_final+0x38/0x60 [btrfs]
> [ 210.802236] Caller [10101f1c:btrfs_csum_fina
From: Christian Kujau
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:13:00 -0800 (PST)
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 at 12:01, David Miller wrote:
>> Can you rerun your test with the following patch applied?
>> It will obtain more information for the btrfs developers.
>
> Thanks, David! Here it is:
>
From: Christian Kujau
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:36:52 -0800 (PST)
> When writing to a newly created btrfs (vanilla 2.6.33-rc6, sparc64) the
> following messages are printed:
>
> [28617.650231] Kernel unaligned access at TPC[10101f18]
> btrfs_csum_final+0x38/0x60 [btrfs]
> [28617.745783] Kernel
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 19:46:30 -0800 (PST)
> First off, gcc _does_ have a perfectly fine notion of how heavy-weight an
> "asm" statement is: just count it as a single instruction (and count the
> argument setup cost that gcc _can_ estimate).
Actually, at least at one point
10 matches
Mail list logo
