Hi Rik,
I applied your patch to linux-next kernel, then divide error happened
when I ran ltp stress test.
The divide error occurred on the following div_u64(), so the following
should be also fixed...
static unsigned long bdi_position_ratio(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
On 04/30/2014 12:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-04-14 12:04:04, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
Hi Rik!
On 04/29/2014 11:19 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to "limit - setpoint" is not
working, so
On Wed 30-04-14 12:04:04, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
> Hi Rik!
>
> On 04/29/2014 11:19 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, leading to a
> >divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to "limit - setpoint" is not
> >working, so we need to actually test the
Hi Rik!
On 04/29/2014 11:19 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to "limit - setpoint" is not
working, so we need to actually test the divisor before calling div64.
The patch looks correct, but I'm
Hi Rik!
On 04/29/2014 11:19 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
It is possible for limit - setpoint + 1 to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to limit - setpoint is not
working, so we need to actually test the divisor before calling div64.
The patch looks correct, but I'm
On Wed 30-04-14 12:04:04, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
Hi Rik!
On 04/29/2014 11:19 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
It is possible for limit - setpoint + 1 to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to limit - setpoint is not
working, so we need to actually test the divisor before
On 04/30/2014 12:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-04-14 12:04:04, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
Hi Rik!
On 04/29/2014 11:19 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
It is possible for limit - setpoint + 1 to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to limit - setpoint is not
working, so we
Hi Rik,
I applied your patch to linux-next kernel, then divide error happened
when I ran ltp stress test.
The divide error occurred on the following div_u64(), so the following
should be also fixed...
static unsigned long bdi_position_ratio(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:48:11 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 06:39 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:19:10 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> >> It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, leading to a
> >> divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to "limit
On 04/29/2014 06:39 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:19:10 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>> It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, leading to a
>> divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to "limit - setpoint" is not
>> working, so we need to actually test the
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:19:10 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote:
> It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, leading to a
> divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to "limit - setpoint" is not
> working, so we need to actually test the divisor before calling div64.
>
> ...
>
> ---
..@suse.cz; fengguang...@intel.com; mpatla...@parallels.com
> Subject: [PATCH] mm,writeback: fix divide by zero in pos_ratio_polynom
>
> It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, leading to a divide
> by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to "limit - setpoin
It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to "limit - setpoint" is not
working, so we need to actually test the divisor before calling div64.
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
---
mm/page-writeback.c | 7
It is possible for limit - setpoint + 1 to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to limit - setpoint is not
working, so we need to actually test the divisor before calling div64.
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
---
...@intel.com; mpatla...@parallels.com
Subject: [PATCH] mm,writeback: fix divide by zero in pos_ratio_polynom
It is possible for limit - setpoint + 1 to equal zero, leading to a divide
by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to limit - setpoint is not working,
so we need to actually test the divisor before
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:19:10 -0400 Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com wrote:
It is possible for limit - setpoint + 1 to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to limit - setpoint is not
working, so we need to actually test the divisor before calling div64.
...
---
On 04/29/2014 06:39 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:19:10 -0400 Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com wrote:
It is possible for limit - setpoint + 1 to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to limit - setpoint is not
working, so we need to actually test the
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:48:11 -0400 Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2014 06:39 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:19:10 -0400 Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com wrote:
It is possible for limit - setpoint + 1 to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly
18 matches
Mail list logo
