Hello HATAYAMA-san, On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:49:11 +0000 "Hatayama, Daisuke" <d.hatayama at jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Atsushi Kumagai [mailto:kumagai-atsushi at mxc.nes.nec.co.jp] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:56 PM > > To: Hatayama, Daisuke > > Cc: kexec at lists.infradead.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] Print warning about cyclic buffer overrun if > > it can happen > > > > Hello HATAYAMA-san, > > > > On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 18:49:00 +0900 > > HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama at jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > Clearling bits on cyclic buffer can overrun the cyclic buffer > > > according to some combination of MAX_ORDER and cyclic buffer size. > > > > > > This patch warns this possibility but continues processing. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama at jp.fujitsu.com> > > > --- > > > > Thank you for pointing it out. > > > > v1.5.1-rc will calculate the cyclic buffer size automatically and this > > issue can happen even if MAX_ORDER is 11, so this patch is useful. > > > > I'll try to resolve this issue essentially in v1.5.2. > > > > Instead of the check, how about the following? > > info->bufsize_cyclic = round(info->bufsize_cyclic, > roundup(max_order_nr_pages, > BITPERBYTE)); > > This chooses the largest buffer size from the sizes smaller than > info->bufsize_cyclic fitting into max_order size. It looks good, please change this patch as the above in v2. Thanks Atsushi Kumagai
