Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] vmalloc: make find_vm_area check in range

[HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>]

(2013/05/16 6:37), KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:06 AM, HATAYAMA Daisuke
> <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Currently, __find_vmap_area searches for the kernel VM area starting
>> at a given address. This patch changes this behavior so that it
>> searches for the kernel VM area to which the address belongs. This
>> change is needed by remap_vmalloc_range_partial to be introduced in
>> later patch that receives any position of kernel VM area as target
>> address.
>>
>> This patch changes the condition (addr > va->va_start) to the
>> equivalent (addr >= va->va_end) by taking advantage of the fact that
>> each kernel VM area is non-overlapping.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>
>>   mm/vmalloc.c |    2 +-
>>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
>> index d365724..3875fa2 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
>> @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ static struct vmap_area *__find_vmap_area(unsigned long addr)
>>                  va = rb_entry(n, struct vmap_area, rb_node);
>>                  if (addr < va->va_start)
>>                          n = n->rb_left;
>> -               else if (addr > va->va_start)
>> +               else if (addr >= va->va_end)
>>                          n = n->rb_right;
>
> OK. This is natural definition. Looks good.
>
> Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>

Thanks for your reviewing. Could you or other someone review the next 
5/8 patch too? It also changes vmalloc and cc people's review is needed.

-- 
Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec