Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> AFAICS this is not yet required for v2.6.26, as the requirement to 
> >>>> never iterate to MAX_NUMNODES and call nr_cpus_node() with the 
> >>>> index only got introduced by Mike's patch.
> >>> the one below is needed as well i think.
> >> Yeah. I think you had better take Mike's patches, I don't trust even 
> >> that my patch and your fixlet does everything correctly.
> > 
> > yep, just discovered that we had them already ;-)
> > 
> > Thomas has just scripted up a new "detect if a commit is not in 
> > linux-next yet" script that should avoid such problems in the future.
> > 
> > your second patch is still wanted, it would have detected the problem 
> > earlier.
> > 
> > 	Ingo
> 
> Thanks, yes, I agree.  However I would like to modify it slightly:
> ---
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Add check for node passed to node_to_cpumask
> 
>   * When CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS is set, the node passed to
>     node_to_cpumask and node_to_cpumask_ptr should be validated.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/setup.c |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> 
> --- linux-2.6.tip.orig/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ linux-2.6.tip/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -399,6 +399,10 @@ int early_cpu_to_node(int cpu)
>  	return per_cpu(x86_cpu_to_node_map, cpu);
>  }
>  
> +
> +/* empty cpumask */
> +static cpumask_t cpu_mask_none;

hm, this should be __read_mostly, maybe even const so that it becomes 
readonly?

	Ingo