> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:00:04 -0400 Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>
>> bitmap_parselist("", , nmaskbits) will erroneously set bit
>> zero in the mask. The same bug is visible in cpumask_parselist()
>> since it is layered on top of the bitmask
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:00:04 -0400 Chris Metcalf wrote:
> bitmap_parselist("", , nmaskbits) will erroneously set bit
> zero in the mask. The same bug is visible in cpumask_parselist()
> since it is layered on top of the bitmask code, e.g. if you boot with
> "isolcpus=", you will actually end up
On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:00:04 -0400 Chris Metcalf cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
bitmap_parselist(, mask, nmaskbits) will erroneously set bit
zero in the mask. The same bug is visible in cpumask_parselist()
since it
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:00:04 -0400 Chris Metcalf cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
bitmap_parselist(, mask, nmaskbits) will erroneously set bit
zero in the mask. The same bug is visible in cpumask_parselist()
since it is layered on top of the bitmask code, e.g. if you boot with
isolcpus=, you will
bitmap_parselist("", , nmaskbits) will erroneously set bit
zero in the mask. The same bug is visible in cpumask_parselist()
since it is layered on top of the bitmask code, e.g. if you boot with
"isolcpus=", you will actually end up with cpu zero isolated.
The bug was introduced in commit
bitmap_parselist(, mask, nmaskbits) will erroneously set bit
zero in the mask. The same bug is visible in cpumask_parselist()
since it is layered on top of the bitmask code, e.g. if you boot with
isolcpus=, you will actually end up with cpu zero isolated.
The bug was introduced in commit
6 matches
Mail list logo
