On 12/21/2015 05:24 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> Should we use c99 initializer instead to make it future-proof?
>> >
>> > I didn't do that to make these sort of failures obvious. In this case, if
>> > we would have
>> > used an initializer and it would default to the "wrong" values it would be
>
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 17:03:15 -0500 Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 12/19/2015 02:52 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:04:51PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> > Commit "mm, oom: introduce oom reaper" forgot to initialize the two new
> >> > fields
> >> > of struct zap_details in
On Fri 18-12-15 20:04:51, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Commit "mm, oom: introduce oom reaper" forgot to initialize the two new fields
> of struct zap_details in unmap_mapping_range(). This caused using stack
> garbage
> on the call to unmap_mapping_range_tree().
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
Thanks fo
On 12/19/2015 02:52 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:04:51PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > Commit "mm, oom: introduce oom reaper" forgot to initialize the two new
>> > fields
>> > of struct zap_details in unmap_mapping_range(). This caused using stack
>> > garbage
>> >
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:04:51PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Commit "mm, oom: introduce oom reaper" forgot to initialize the two new fields
> of struct zap_details in unmap_mapping_range(). This caused using stack
> garbage
> on the call to unmap_mapping_range_tree().
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha L
Commit "mm, oom: introduce oom reaper" forgot to initialize the two new fields
of struct zap_details in unmap_mapping_range(). This caused using stack garbage
on the call to unmap_mapping_range_tree().
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
---
mm/memory.c |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --gi
6 matches
Mail list logo
