From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] another tranche of SCSI updates for 2.6.26 Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <1209320076.3801.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080428013400.GA6245@elte.hu> <1209351113.3801.107.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:51540 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933537AbYD1QGW (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:06:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1209351113.3801.107.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , linux-scsi , linux-kernel On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, James Bottomley wrote: > > Try this; the signature for an uninitialised free list is easy (both > list pointers NULL), so the patch detects that and doesn't try to run > over the uninitialised list head. Why aren't these things initialized? You say that the signature of an uninitialised free list is trivial, but that's not at all true in general. It depends intimately on how the memory was allocated, and is thus very subtle indeed - some change to allocations can break something simple like this, by initializing it with random old memory contents. So why not just initialize lists like this so early (ie at allocation time) that problems like this cannot happen? Instead of adding ugly and fragile cases to the freeing? Linus