From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472BF6B0032 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:07:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by pdev10 with SMTP id v10so24843566pde.7 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:07:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gw2-out.broadcom.com (mail-gw2-out.broadcom.com. [216.31.210.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 3si6999400pdq.176.2015.02.27.17.07.32 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:07:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F114D0.3060306@broadcom.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:07:28 -0800 From: Danesh Petigara MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: cma: fix CMA aligned offset calculation References: <1424821185-16956-1-git-send-email-dpetigara@broadcom.com> <20150227132443.e17d574d45451f10f413f065@linux-foundation.org> <54F10358.1050102@broadcom.com> <20150227155458.697b7701d0a67ff7b4f3d9cb@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20150227155458.697b7701d0a67ff7b4f3d9cb@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: m.szyprowski@samsung.com, mina86@mina86.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com, gregory.0xf0@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org On 2/27/2015 3:54 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:52:56 -0800 Danesh Petigara wrote: > >> On 2/27/2015 1:24 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:39:45 -0800 Danesh Petigara wrote: >>> >>>> The CMA aligned offset calculation is incorrect for >>>> non-zero order_per_bit values. >>>> >>>> For example, if cma->order_per_bit=1, cma->base_pfn= >>>> 0x2f800000 and align_order=12, the function returns >>>> a value of 0x17c00 instead of 0x400. >>>> >>>> This patch fixes the CMA aligned offset calculation. >>> >>> When fixing a bug please always describe the end-user visible effects >>> of that bug. >>> >>> Without that information others are unable to understand why you are >>> recommending a -stable backport. >>> >> >> Thank you for the feedback. I had no crash logs to show, nevertheless, I >> agree that a sentence describing potential effects of the bug would've >> helped. > > What was the reason for adding a cc:stable? > It was added since the commit that introduced the incorrect logic (b5be83e) was already picked up by v3.19. Thanks, Danesh -- 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: email@kvack.org