From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH] DSPBRIDGE: Prevent memory corruption in DRV_ProcFreeDMMRes Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:53:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20100211155322.GE4673@annwn.felipec.org> References: <441be695a293805f9de42ad5ce5bf6bca21434fc.1265660264.git.ameya.palande@nokia.com> <94a0d4531002090429n77e65230r4cb426e92384595c@mail.gmail.com> <496565EC904933469F292DDA3F1663E602AA725BDE@dlee06.ent.ti.com> <94a0d4531002091548n18897915kd236f9f7b332c1eb@mail.gmail.com> <496565EC904933469F292DDA3F1663E602AA725D82@dlee06.ent.ti.com> <20100210130759.GC9214@annwn.felipec.org> <496565EC904933469F292DDA3F1663E602AA725F61@dlee06.ent.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.105.134]:23887 "EHLO mgw-mx09.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750830Ab0BKPxp (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:53:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <496565EC904933469F292DDA3F1663E602AA725F61@dlee06.ent.ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "ext Guzman Lugo, Fernando" Cc: Ameya Palande , linux-omap , Omar Ramirez Luna , Nishanth Menon , "Chitriki Rudramuni, Deepak" , Phil Carmody On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 06:31:35PM +0100, ext Guzman Lugo, Fernando wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contreras@nokia.com] > >> Resource cleanup does not support that even without my proposed changes. > > > >Aha! I suspected it :P > > > Resource cleanup does not support that because it tries to unreserved > every chunk mapped. However it does not means the dspbridge does not > support reserving a big chunk of memory and mapping small parts of > that memory, but I have not tested it to confirm if it works. I think I did once and it didn't work, but I thought the problem was in my app. Anyway I think we should either forget about this use-case or fix the resource cleaning. > >> I just proposed a solution which fixes two issues in one patch. > >> Moreover if this change is merged when the second issue be fixed this > >> patch will not needed anymore, so why don't merge the patch which > >> fixes both errors at this moment? > > > >simple patches > complicated patches > The patch is more simple than it looks. Only one way to know :) > >Personally I think your patches should be a continuation to the patches > >I just proposed. > Yes, I think it would be better. Cool. -- Felipe Contreras