On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:25:07 -0500 > kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Currently, n_new is wrongly initialized. start and end parameter >> are inverted. Let's fix it. >> >> ... >> >> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c >> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c >> @@ -2390,7 +2390,7 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start, >> >> *mpol_new = *n->policy; >> atomic_set(&mpol_new->refcnt, 1); >> - sp_node_init(n_new, n->end, end, mpol_new); >> + sp_node_init(n_new, end, n->end, mpol_new); >> n->end = start; >> sp_insert(sp, n_new); >> n_new = NULL; > > huh. What were the runtime effects of this problem? I think passed policy don't effect correctly. No big issue because nobody uses route except Dave Jones testcase. (remember, until very recently, this route has kernel crash bug and nobody have been hit.) -- 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>