From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089F56B0035 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 08:40:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p9so107938lbv.40 for ; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 05:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e28smtp09.in.ibm.com (e28smtp09.in.ibm.com. [122.248.162.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qp9si6368784lbb.61.2014.07.03.05.40.25 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Jul 2014 05:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp09.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:10:22 +0530 Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58]) by d28dlp01.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B409BE0045 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:11:39 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (d28av03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.65]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s63Cff0G15204448 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:11:42 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av03.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s63CeHwa002475 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:10:18 +0530 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 20:40:15 +0800 From: Wei Yang Subject: Re: mm: slub: invalid memory access in setup_object Message-ID: <20140703124015.GA17431@richard> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <53AAFDF7.2010607@oracle.com> <20140702020454.GA6961@richard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Wei Yang , David Rientjes , Sasha Levin , Pekka Enberg , Matt Mackall , Andrew Morton , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , LKML , Dave Jones On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:20:20AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: >On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Wei Yang wrote: > >> My patch is somewhat convoluted since I wanted to preserve the original logic >> and make minimal change. And yes, it looks not that nice to audience. > >Well I was the author of the initial "convoluted" logic. > >> I feel a little hurt by this patch. What I found and worked is gone with this >> patch. > >Ok how about giving this one additional revision. Maybe you can make the >function even easier to read? F.e. the setting of the NULL pointer at the >end of the loop is ugly. Hi, Christoph Here is my refined version, hope this is more friendly to the audience.