2011/10/3 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Indeed, it should not happen.On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 15:35, Wei Yang <weiyang.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2011/10/3 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 12:24, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
>> <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 21:57:07 +0800
>> > Wei Yang <weiyang.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear experts,
>> >>
>> >> I am viewing the source code of __release_region() in
>> >> kernel/resource.c.
>> >> And I have one comment for the performance issue.
>> >>
>> >> For example, we have a resource tree like this.
>> >> 10-89
>> >> 20-79
>> >> 30-49
>> >> 55-59
>> >> 60-64
>> >> 65-69
>> >> 80-89
>> >> 100-279
>> >>
>> >> If the caller wants to release a region of [50,59], the original code
>> >> will
>> ^^^^^^^
>> Do you really mean [50,59]?
>
> Yes.
>>
>> I don't think that's allowed, as the tree has [55,59], so you would
>> release a
>> larger region that allocated.
>
> So you mean the case I mentioned will not happen?
Actually I'm surprised it doesn't return an error code.
Yes, it shouldn't happen.
But it need to handle the error case.
But it need to handle the error case.
> Actually, I believe every developer should pass the resource region which
> has been allocated.
> While if some one made a mistake and pass a region which is not allocated
> before and overlap
> some "BUSY" region?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
Wei Yang
Help You, Help Me