Hello, On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 11:42:12PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote: > This patchset is to fix issues in zram found by code inspection. > There is still one more issue left: should we repalce zram_stat64_xxx() > with atomic64_xxx()? > > Jiang Liu (8): > zram: simplify and optimize zram_to_dev() > zram: avoid invalid memory access in zram_exit() > zram: use zram->lock to protect zram_free_page() in swap free notify > path > zram: destroy all devices on error recovery path in zram_init() > zram: avoid double free in error recovery path of zram_bvec_write() > zram: avoid access beyond the zram device > zram: optimize memory operations with clear_page()/copy_page() > zram: protect sysfs handler from invalid memory access I reviewed your patchset roughly and I feel most of patches make sense to me but some of that isn't not sure because you didn't write up the possible scenario, expecially "zram: use zram->lock to protect zram_free_page() in swap free notify path". If your patchset fix real problem, it should go to the stable tree so you need to write description up in detail. So, please rewrite up description on all of patches and resend. Thanks! -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
