On 04/13/2017 11:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:55:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> A group of Linux kernel hackers reported chasing a bug that resulted >> from their assumption that SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU provided an existence >> guarantee, that is, that no block from such a slab would be reallocated >> during an RCU read-side critical section. Of course, that is not the >> case. Instead, SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU only prevents freeing of an entire >> slab of blocks. > > And that while we wrote a huge honking comment right along with it... > >> [ paulmck: Add "tombstone" comments as requested by Eric Dumazet. ] > > I cannot find any occurrence of "tomb" or "TOMB" in the actual patch, > confused? It's the comments such as: + * Note that SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU was originally named SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. so that people who remember the old name can git grep its fate. > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
