From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758818AbYEFOUK (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 10:20:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754648AbYEFOT5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 10:19:57 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:47696 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754620AbYEFOT5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 10:19:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 07:19:43 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Li Zefan Cc: clameter@sgi.com, LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc.c: fix a typo Message-Id: <20080506071943.46641c26.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <482029E7.6070308@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <4820272C.4060009@cn.fujitsu.com> <482027E4.6030300@cn.fujitsu.com> <482029E7.6070308@cn.fujitsu.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 06 May 2008 17:50:31 +0800 Li Zefan wrote: > Li Zefan wrote: > > --- > > Signed-off-by: Li Zefan > --- > > Sorry for the noise, but the signed-off was eaten. :( > Maybe I should leave a blank line before the signed-off. > > --- > > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index bdd5c43..d0ba10d 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ static void destroy_compound_page(struct page *page, unsigned long order) > for (i = 1; i < nr_pages; i++) { > struct page *p = page + i; > > - if (unlikely(!PageTail(p) | > + if (unlikely(!PageTail(p) || > (p->first_page != page))) > bad_page(page); > __ClearPageTail(p); I have a vague memory that the "|" was deliberate. Most of the time, "!PageTail" will be false so most of the time we won't take the first branch so it's probably worth omitting it and always doing the pointer comparison. It's a somewhat dopey trick and shouldn't have been done without a comment. otoh maybe it was a typo.