On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:37:34PM +0400, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> Fix pcpu_alloc() to return ZERO_SIZE_PTR if requested size is 0;
> fix free_percpu() to check passed pointer with ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.anti...@linaro.org>
> ---
> mm/percpu.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> index f47af91..e903a19 100644
> --- a/mm/percpu.c
> +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> @@ -702,7 +702,8 @@ static struct pcpu_chunk *pcpu_chunk_addr_search(void
> *addr)
> * Does GFP_KERNEL allocation.
> *
> * RETURNS:
> - * Percpu pointer to the allocated area on success, NULL on failure.
> + * ZERO_SIZE_PTR if @size is zero, percpu pointer to the
> + * allocated area on success or NULL on failure.
> */
> static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t align, bool reserved)
> {
> @@ -713,7 +714,10 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t
> align, bool reserved)
> unsigned long flags;
> void __percpu *ptr;
>
> - if (unlikely(!size || size > PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE || align > PAGE_SIZE)) {
> + if (unlikely(!size))
> + return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
Percpu pointers are in a different address space and using
ZERO_SIZE_PTR directly will trigger sparse address space warning.
Also, I'm not entirely sure whether 16 is guaranteed to be unused in
percpu address space (maybe it is but I don't think we have anything
enforcing that).
Thanks.
--
tejun
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
