On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-18 at 09:57 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> []
>> A handful of boot panics on ARM platforms were bisected to point at
>> the version of this commit that's in linux-next (commit
>> 64c862a839a8db2c02bbaa88b923d13e1208919d). Reverting this commit
>> makes things happy again.
>>
>> Upon further digging, it seems that users of devres_alloc() are
>> relying on the previous behavior of having the memory zero'd which is
>> no longer the case after $SUBJECT patch. The change below on top of
>> -next makes these ARM boards happy again.
> []
>> commit 64c862a8 (devres: add kernel standard devm_k.alloc functions) changed
>> the default behavior of alloc_dr() to no longer zero the allocated
>> memory. However,
>> only the devm.k.alloc() function were modified to pass in __GFP_ZERO
>> which leaves
>> any users of devres_alloc() or __devres_alloc() with potentially wrong
>> assumptions
>> about memory being zero'd upon allocation.
>>
>> To fix, add __GFP_ZERO to devres_alloc() calls to preserve previous
>> behavior of zero'ing memory upon allocation.
> []
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/devres.c b/drivers/base/devres.c
> []
>> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ void * devres_alloc(dr_release_t release, size_t
>> size, gfp_t gfp)
>> {
>> struct devres *dr;
>>
>> - dr = alloc_dr(release, size, gfp);
>> + dr = alloc_dr(release, size, gfp | __GFP_ZERO);
>> if (unlikely(!dr))
>> return NULL;
>> return dr->data;
>
> Wouldn't the __devres_alloc need that too?
Yeah, I had mentioned __devres_alloc() in the changelog, but missed
it in the actual patch. :(
Anyways, I had quickly sent an updated patch, but our mails must've
crossed paths.
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
