On 23/02/2022 04:35, Kasireddy, Vivek wrote:
Hi Tvrtko,
On 18/02/2022 03:47, Kasireddy, Vivek wrote:
Hi Tvrtko,
On 17/02/2022 07:50, Vivek Kasireddy wrote:
While looking for next holes suitable for an allocation, although,
it is highly unlikely, make sure that the DECLARE_NEXT_HOLE_ADDR
macro is using a valid node before it extracts the rb_node from it.
Was the need for this just a consequence of insufficient locking in the
i915 patch?
[Kasireddy, Vivek] Partly, yes; but I figured since we are anyway doing
if (!entry || ..), it makes sense to dereference entry and extract the rb_node
after this check.
Unless I am blind I don't see that it makes a difference.
"&entry->rb_hole_addr" is taking an address of, which works "fine" is
[Kasireddy, Vivek] Ah, didn't realize it was the same thing as offsetof().
entry is NULL. And does not get past the !entry check for the actual
de-reference via RB_EMPTY_NODE. With your patch you move that after the
!entry check but still have it in the RB_EMPTY_NODE macro. Again, unless
I am blind, I think just drop this patch.
[Kasireddy, Vivek] Sure; do you want me to send another version with this
patch dropped? Or, would you be able to just merge the other two from the
latest version of this series?
Please send without the first patch so we get clean set of CI results.
You can use "--subject-prefix=CI" with git format-patchs and
--suppress-cc=all with git send-email to avoid spamming people and let
readers know the re-send is just for the purpose of getting CI results.
Regards,
Tvrtko
