Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:26:51 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5 |
| |
* Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> AFAICS this is not yet required for v2.6.26, as the requirement to > >>>> never iterate to MAX_NUMNODES and call nr_cpus_node() with the > >>>> index only got introduced by Mike's patch. > >>> the one below is needed as well i think. > >> Yeah. I think you had better take Mike's patches, I don't trust even > >> that my patch and your fixlet does everything correctly. > > > > yep, just discovered that we had them already ;-) > > > > Thomas has just scripted up a new "detect if a commit is not in > > linux-next yet" script that should avoid such problems in the future. > > > > your second patch is still wanted, it would have detected the problem > > earlier. > > > > Ingo > > Thanks, yes, I agree. However I would like to modify it slightly: > --- > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Add check for node passed to node_to_cpumask > > * When CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS is set, the node passed to > node_to_cpumask and node_to_cpumask_ptr should be validated. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > --- linux-2.6.tip.orig/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > +++ linux-2.6.tip/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > @@ -399,6 +399,10 @@ int early_cpu_to_node(int cpu) > return per_cpu(x86_cpu_to_node_map, cpu); > } > > + > +/* empty cpumask */ > +static cpumask_t cpu_mask_none;
hm, this should be __read_mostly, maybe even const so that it becomes readonly?
Ingo
| |