On 2013/6/13 10:38, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:36:40AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> On 2013/6/13 5:03, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> There's no point in using kmalloc() and list_del() instead of the
>>> clearing variants for trivial stuff. We can live dangerously
>>> elsewhere. Use k
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 07:56:23PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> poison. Maybe it was something which got stuck in my brain from
> before the git history or I'm just hallucinating. Anyways, yeap,
Just checked 2.4. It didn't poison then. Somehow I never got that
out of my brain all these years. #f
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 07:48:59PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > list_del() does do poisoning - and list debugging is cheaper to enable
> > > than full slab debugg
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 07:48:59PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > list_del() does do poisoning - and list debugging is cheaper to enable
> > than full slab debugging.
>
> Ah, right, now we have DEBUG_LIST. Completely forgot about tha
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> list_del() does do poisoning - and list debugging is cheaper to enable
> than full slab debugging.
Ah, right, now we have DEBUG_LIST. Completely forgot about that. I
don't think the cost difference matters that much as long as th
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 07:41:15PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Kent Overstreet
> wrote:
> > IMO, list_del() is preferred when the object shouldn't be reused (i.e.
> > it gets taken off a list and then it's freed). list_del_init() could
> > hide bugs.
>
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> IMO, list_del() is preferred when the object shouldn't be reused (i.e.
> it gets taken off a list and then it's freed). list_del_init() could
> hide bugs.
Nah... use-after-frees are detected much more reliably by poisoning
anyway.
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> Do you mean we prefer list_del_init() than list_del() in general? Then
Yes.
> in which cases do we prefer list_del()?
Nowadays, I don't think we ever prefer list_del(). Maybe if it can be
shown that the extra init part is noticeably exp
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:36:40AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/6/13 5:03, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > There's no point in using kmalloc() and list_del() instead of the
> > clearing variants for trivial stuff. We can live dangerously
> > elsewhere. Use kzalloc() and list_del_init() instead and drop
On 2013/6/13 5:03, Tejun Heo wrote:
> There's no point in using kmalloc() and list_del() instead of the
> clearing variants for trivial stuff. We can live dangerously
> elsewhere. Use kzalloc() and list_del_init() instead and drop 0
> inits.
>
Do you mean we prefer list_del_init() than list_del
There's no point in using kmalloc() and list_del() instead of the
clearing variants for trivial stuff. We can live dangerously
elsewhere. Use kzalloc() and list_del_init() instead and drop 0
inits.
While at it, do trivial code reorganization in cgroup_file_open().
This patch doesn't introduce a
11 matches
Mail list logo
