Hi,
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
The current check looks wrong and prints "[heap]" only if the mapping
matches exactly the heap. However, the heap may be merged with some
other mappings, and there may be also be multiple mappings.
Signed-off-by: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
[...]
Your description said,
the heap may be merged with some other mappings,
^^^^^^
but your example is splitting case. not merge. In other words, your
patch care splitting case but break merge case.
Ok, we have no obvious correct behavior. This is debatable. So,
Why do you think vma splitting case is important than merge?
Sorry, I was unclear.
The current behaviour is wrong for both merged and split cases, and I
think the patch fixes both.
Argh, this is confusing. The current check:
vma->vm_start <= mm->start_brk && vma->vm_end >= mm->brk
obviously works with the merged case. The patch changes this to:
vma->vm_start <= mm->brk && vma->vm_end >= mm->start_brk
This works with the split case, but it does not break the merged case
(or do I miss something still?).
So the current behaviour is broken only with the splitting case. I will
correct the patch description and resend it.
A.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>