Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> writes: > > One example is mm/memory-failure.c:memory_failure(). It starts with a > raw pfn, uses that to get at the `struct page', then starts playing > around with it. Will that code still work correctly when some of the > page's fields have been overlayed with slab-specific contents?
As long as PageSlab() works correctly memory_failure should be happy. > > This issue hasn't been well thought through. Given a random struct > page, there isn't any protocol to determine what it actually *is*. > It's a plain old variant record, but it lacks the agreed-upon tag field > which tells users which variant is currently in use. PageSlab() should work for this right? For the generic case it may not though. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only -- 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/
