All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: GIT head no longer boots on x86-64
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:33:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <48F60D56.6040209@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0810150758310.3288@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>

On 10/15/2008 05:06 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Queued the fix below up in tip/x86/urgent for a merge to Linus later 
>> today. Thanks!
> 
> Please don't send this crap to me.
> 
> Guys, _look_ at the patch for one second. And then tell me it isn't crap. 

Not in my eyes.

> The question is: "Is this a vmalloc'ed area?". That's the name of the 
> function. AND YOU JUST BROKE IT!

Modules area is vmalloc'ed on x86; on x86_64 only in different virtual address
space area. So returning true from is_vmalloc_addr() for this space looks very
sane to me, as it was on x86_32 for years.

Users usually do
is_vmalloc_addr(a) ? vfree(a) : kfree(a);
Even there it makes more sense to me.

However I'm fine with introducing is_module_addr() alike function for x86 to
check the general modules space bounds on x86_64 and return is_vmalloc_addr() on
x86_32. Does this look better?

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: GIT head no longer boots on x86-64
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:33:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <48F60D56.6040209@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0810150758310.3288@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>

On 10/15/2008 05:06 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Queued the fix below up in tip/x86/urgent for a merge to Linus later 
>> today. Thanks!
> 
> Please don't send this crap to me.
> 
> Guys, _look_ at the patch for one second. And then tell me it isn't crap. 

Not in my eyes.

> The question is: "Is this a vmalloc'ed area?". That's the name of the 
> function. AND YOU JUST BROKE IT!

Modules area is vmalloc'ed on x86; on x86_64 only in different virtual address
space area. So returning true from is_vmalloc_addr() for this space looks very
sane to me, as it was on x86_32 for years.

Users usually do
is_vmalloc_addr(a) ? vfree(a) : kfree(a);
Even there it makes more sense to me.

However I'm fine with introducing is_module_addr() alike function for x86 to
check the general modules space bounds on x86_64 and return is_vmalloc_addr() on
x86_32. Does this look better?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2008-10-15 15:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-10-13  9:23 GIT head no longer boots on x86-64 Alan Cox
2008-10-13 10:13 ` Jiri Slaby
2008-10-13 10:20   ` Alan Cox
2008-10-13 10:56     ` Jiri Slaby
2008-10-13 13:35       ` Alan Cox
2008-10-13 15:03         ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-13 15:11           ` Jiri Slaby
2008-10-13 15:11             ` Jiri Slaby
2008-10-13 15:47             ` Alan Cox
2008-10-13 15:47               ` Alan Cox
2008-10-15 11:51               ` Ingo Molnar
2008-10-15 11:51                 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-10-15 13:19                 ` Jiri Slaby
2008-10-15 13:19                   ` Jiri Slaby
2008-10-15 15:06                 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-15 15:06                   ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-15 15:33                   ` Jiri Slaby [this message]
2008-10-15 15:33                     ` Jiri Slaby
2008-10-15 16:01                     ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-15 16:01                       ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-15 20:31                     ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-15 20:31                       ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-15 15:35                   ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-15 15:35                     ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-16 10:31                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-10-16 10:31                       ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-10-13 14:45       ` Linus Torvalds
2008-10-13 14:50         ` Jiri Slaby

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=48F60D56.6040209@gmail.com \
    --to=jirislaby@gmail.com \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.