On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 11-04-17 13:59:44, Cristopher Lameter wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > I didn't say anything like that. Hence the proposed patch which still > > > needs some more thinking and evaluation. > > > > This patch does not even affect kfree(). > > Ehm? Are we even talking about the same thing? The whole discussion was > to catch invalid pointers to _kfree_ and why BUG* is not the best way to > handle that.
The patch does not do that. See my review. Invalid points to kfree are already caught with a bug on. See kfree in mm/slub.c
