Zach Brown <zab@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> + ret = cpulist_parse(buf, newmask);
>> + if (!ret) {
>> + spin_lock(&bdi->wb_lock);
>> + task = wb->task;
>> + get_task_struct(task);
>> + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock);
>> + if (task)
>> + ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task, newmask);
>> + put_task_struct(task);
>
> If that test for a non-null task is needed then surely the get and put
> need to be similarly protected :).
How embarrassing.
>> + bdi->flusher_cpumask = kmalloc(sizeof(cpumask_t), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!bdi->flusher_cpumask)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> The bare GFP_KERNEL raises an eyebrow. Some bdi_init() callers like
> blk_alloc_queue_node() look like they'll want to pass in a gfp_t for the
> allocation.
I'd be surprised if that was necessary, seeing how every single caller
of blk_alloc_queue_node passes in GFP_KERNEL. I'll make the change,
though, there aren't too many callers of bdi_init out there.
> And shouldn't this be freed in the error path of bdi_init()?
Yes. ;-)
Thanks!
Jeff
--
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>