> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 08:00:21PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > @@ -2252,7 +2252,7 @@ void vm_unmap_ram(const void *mem, unsigned int count) > > return; > > } > > > > - va = find_vmap_area(addr); > > + va = find_unlink_vmap_area(addr); > > BUG_ON(!va); > > debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)va->va_start, > > (va->va_end - va->va_start)); > > Don't we also need to remove the manual unlink that was done > here previously? Actually it seems like that manual unlink is missing > after patch 1, creating a bisection hazard. So either add it there, > or just fold this patch into the previous one. > Right. In terms of bisection it is not so good. I think folding is the best. Andrew, could you please fold this patch into the: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: vmalloc: Avoid calling __find_vmap_area() twice in __vunmap() ? or should i send a v4 instead? Thank you in advance! -- Uladzislau Rezki
