Re: [PATCH] x86: split e820 reserved entries record to late v4 - fix

From: Yinghai Lu
Date: Fri Aug 29 2008 - 12:37:22 EST


On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> try to insert_resource second time, by expand the resource...
>
> I would hold off on this unless it's shown to actually be needed. And _if_
> it is needed, I would just make a new function for doing this all:
> "insert_resource_expand_to_fit()"
>
> That said, I think the insert_resource()/__insert_resource() change is
> pretty ok. However, it doesn't follow the rules, and is racy. The rules
> for resources are:
>
> - the "internal" version (with the "__" prepended) is static to
> resource.c, because it must not be called from outside, which is in
> turn because:
>
> - it must be called with the lock taken by the caller, because otherwise
> returning a "struct resource *" is racy - the resource is not protected
> by anything!
>
> So the "insert_resource_expand_to_fit()" thing would look something like
> this:
>
> void insert_resource_expand_to_fit(struct resource *root, struct resource *new)
> {
> write_lock(&resource_lock);
> while (new->start && new->parent) {
> struct resource *conflict;
>
> conflict = __insert_resource(root, new);
> if (!conflict)
> break;
> if (conflict->start < new->start)
> new->start = conflict->start;
> if (conflict->end > new->end)
> new->end = conflict->end;
> }
> write_unlock(&resource_lock);
> }
>
> but the above is obviously _totally_ untested.
>

good, will build one test stub to test it.

YH
--
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/