On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:53:10AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On (04/18/17 08:53), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 07:50:16PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > Hello Minchan,
> > >
> > > On (04/17/17 11:14), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at
Hello,
On (04/18/17 08:53), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 07:50:16PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Hello Minchan,
> >
> > On (04/17/17 11:14), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:54:29AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > On (04/17/17 10:21), Sergey Sen
Hi Sergey,
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 07:50:16PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello Minchan,
>
> On (04/17/17 11:14), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:54:29AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (04/17/17 10:21), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > However, it should be
On (04/17/17 19:50), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> so in the existing scheme of things, we never care about 'sector'
> passed from zram_rw_page(). and this has worked for us for quite
> some time. my call would be -- let's drop zram_rw_page() `sector'
> calculation.
d'oh... s/sector/offset/g
Hello Minchan,
On (04/17/17 11:14), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:54:29AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (04/17/17 10:21), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > However, it should be *fixed* to prevent confusion in future
> >
> > or may be something like below? can save us
Hi Sergey,
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:54:29AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/17/17 10:21), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > However, it should be *fixed* to prevent confusion in future
>
> or may be something like below? can save us some cycles.
>
> remove this calculation
>
> -
On (04/17/17 10:21), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > However, it should be *fixed* to prevent confusion in future
or may be something like below? can save us some cycles.
remove this calculation
- offset = sector & (SECTORS_PER_PAGE - 1) << SECTOR_SHIFT;
and pass 0 to zram_bvec_rw()
-
Hello,
On (04/15/17 00:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 02:07:47PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (04/13/17 09:17), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > [..]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > index 9e2199060040..83c38a123242 100644
>
On (04/13/17 09:17), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:17:00 +0900
> From: Minchan Kim
> To: Andrew Morton
> CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky
> , kernel-t...@lge.com, Minchan Kim
> , sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] zram: fix o
Hi Sergey,
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 02:07:47PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On (04/13/17 09:17), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > index 9e2199060040..83c38a123242 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_d
Hello,
On (04/13/17 09:17), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index 9e2199060040..83c38a123242 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -930,7 +930,7 @@ static int zram_rw_page(struc
In zram_rw_page, the logic to get offset is wrong by operator precedence
(i.e., "<<" is higher than "&"). With wrong offset, zram can corrupt the
user's data. This patch fixes it.
Fixes: 8c7f01025 ("zram: implement rw_page operation of zram")
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim
12 matches
Mail list logo
