Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5

Ingo Molnar
2008-06-18T08:27:25Z

* 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