Re: [PATCH 2.4] the perils of kunmap_atomic

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 09:31, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Ignoring the driver-related bugs that are present due to 
>> kunmap_atomic()'s weirdness, there also appears to be a big in the 
>> !CONFIG_HIGHMEM implementation in 2.4.x.
>> (Bart is poking through some of the 2.6.x-related kunmap_atomic slip-ups)
>> Anyway, what do people think about the attached patch to 2.4.x?  I'm 
>> surprised it has gone unnoticed until now.

On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:42:34AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> On second thoughts, I think it's a bad idea to change the macro - in 2.6
> at least. There are lots of uses of kunmap_atomic, and most of them do
> the right thing. It's only inattentive people like me that need to fix
> their code. :>
> It would be good, though, to have kunmap_atomic warn on invalid
> parameters (want a patch for that?)

The bug Jeff spotted is in 2.4.x only. It's probably worth spitting out
the expected and seen virtual address, and possibly the kmap index.


-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/