From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 14 May 2008 02:03:43 +0100 (BST) Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:57573 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20030512AbYENBDk (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 02:03:40 +0100 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.55]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id m4E12U9o031051 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 13 May 2008 18:02:31 -0700 Received: from y.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with SMTP id m4E12Pdx009236; Tue, 13 May 2008 18:02:27 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 18:02:25 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Ralf Baechle Cc: Ilpo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E4rvinen?= , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] [MIPS]: multi-statement if() seems to be missing braces Message-Id: <20080513180225.194f400b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080513232507.GA24102@linux-mips.org> References: <20080513232507.GA24102@linux-mips.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 140.211.169.13 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 19263 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: akpm@linux-foundation.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, 14 May 2008 00:25:07 +0100 Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:50:50PM +0300, Ilpo J__rvinen wrote: > > > In case this is a genuine bug, somebody else more familiar > > with that stuff should evaluate it's effects (I just found it > > by some shell pipeline and it seems suspicious looking). > > Should be fairly as proven by practice; it's there since day of of 64-bit > pagetable for 32-bit hw support which was November 29, 2004. > It's unlikely that anyone would notice an error in pte_mkyoung(). It will affect page reclaim behaviour and _might_ be demonstrable with a carefully set up test. But an error in here won't cause crashes or lockups or anything. What this needs is someone who understands the architecture (ie: you ;)) to take a look, please.