Re: [PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: fix prio_tree unit

Hugh Dickins
2006-10-26T07:55:29Z

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 04:49:29PM -0700, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> >
> > Hugh, if you haven't got time to reconstruct the bug sequence, don't
> > bother. I'll give my test cases to David.

Thanks a lot, Ken.

>
> Actually, Hugh already sent me a testcase by direct mail. But more
> testcases are already good.
>
> I don't really understand your case1.c, though. It didn't cause any
> oops on my laptop (i386) and I couldn't see what else was expected to
> behave differently between the "pass" and "fail" cases. It returns an
> uninitialized variable as exit code, btw..

I found it all very confusing, and I'm relieved to hear that Ken
did too! Much easier to fix than to work out testcases and make
sense of the resulting misbehaviour. I wasn't even aware that it
could happen without going beyond 4GB.

>
> So, I've integrated both Hugh's testcase and case2.c into the
> libhugetlbfs testsuite. A patch to libhugetlbfs is below. It would
> be good if we could get Signed-off-by lines for it from Hugh and
> Kenneth, to keep the lawyer types happy, then Adam should be able to
> merge it into libhugetlbfs. It applies on top of my earlier patch
> adding testcases for the i_size related reserve count wraparound.

Yes, you're welcome to my
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>

Hugh