On 4/2/19 1:01 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:34:15 +0200 Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> NODEMASK_ALLOC is used to allocate a nodemask bitmap, ant it does it by >> first determining whether it should be allocated in the stack or dinamically >> depending on NODES_SHIFT. >> Right now, it goes the dynamic path whenever the nodemask_t is above 32 >> bytes. >> >> Although we could bump it to a reasonable value, the largest a nodemask_t >> can get is 128 bytes, so since __nr_hugepages_store_common is called from >> a rather shore stack we can just get rid of the NODEMASK_ALLOC call here. >> >> This reduces some code churn and complexity. > > It took a bit of sleuthing to figure out that this patch applies to > Mike's "hugetlbfs: fix potential over/underflow setting node specific > nr_hugepages". Should they be folded together? I'm thinking not. No need to fold. They are separate issues and that over/underflow patch may already be doing too many things. > (Also, should "hugetlbfs: fix potential over/underflow setting node > specific nr_hugepages" have been -stableified? I also think not, but I > bet it happens anyway). I don't see a great reason for sending to stable. IIRC, nobody actually hit this issue: it was found through code inspection. -- Mike Kravetz
