On Tue, 2019-07-02 at 08:13 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 02-07-19 14:13:25, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 12:46 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 28-06-19 10:46:28, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Given that there is already a VM_BUG_ON in the code, how
On Tue 02-07-19 14:13:25, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 12:46 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 28-06-19 10:46:28, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Given that there is already a VM_BUG_ON in the code, how do you
> > > feel
> > > about broadening the scope from 'VM_BUG_O
On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 12:46 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 28-06-19 10:46:28, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> [...]
> > Given that there is already a VM_BUG_ON in the code, how do you
> > feel
> > about broadening the scope from 'VM_BUG_ON(!root)' to
> > 'VM_BUG_ON(!root
> > > > (root_nr == NR_SECTI
On Fri 28-06-19 10:46:28, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
[...]
> Given that there is already a VM_BUG_ON in the code, how do you feel
> about broadening the scope from 'VM_BUG_ON(!root)' to 'VM_BUG_ON(!root
> || (root_nr == NR_SECTION_ROOTS))'?
As far as I understand the existing VM_BUG_ON will hit when
On Fri 28-06-19 13:37:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> VM_BUG_ON is only really active with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM. On
> !CONFIG_DEBUG_VM it translated to BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(), which is a
> compile-time only check.
>
> Or am I missing something?
You are not missing anything.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
On 27.06.19 10:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 27-06-19 10:50:57, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:57 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 26-06-19 16:27:30, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:21 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-06-19 16:11:21, Alas
On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 10:10 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 27-06-19 10:50:57, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:57 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 26-06-19 16:27:30, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:21 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On W
On Thu 27-06-19 10:50:57, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:57 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-06-19 16:27:30, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:21 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 26-06-19 16:11:21, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > > > > From: Ala
On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:57 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-06-19 16:27:30, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:21 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 26-06-19 16:11:21, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > > > From: Alastair D'Silva
> > > >
> > > > If a memory section comes in
On Wed 26-06-19 16:27:30, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:21 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-06-19 16:11:21, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > > From: Alastair D'Silva
> > >
> > > If a memory section comes in where the physical address is greater
> > > than
> > > that which
On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 08:21 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-06-19 16:11:21, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > From: Alastair D'Silva
> >
> > If a memory section comes in where the physical address is greater
> > than
> > that which is managed by the kernel, this function would not
> > trigger th
On Wed 26-06-19 16:11:21, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> From: Alastair D'Silva
>
> If a memory section comes in where the physical address is greater than
> that which is managed by the kernel, this function would not trigger the
> bug and instead return a bogus section number.
>
> This patch tracks
From: Alastair D'Silva
If a memory section comes in where the physical address is greater than
that which is managed by the kernel, this function would not trigger the
bug and instead return a bogus section number.
This patch tracks whether the section was actually found, and triggers the
bug if
13 matches
Mail list logo
