On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:59:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 16 May 2013, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ do { \ > > long __pu_err; \ > > __typeof__(*(ptr)) __user *__pu_addr = (ptr); \ > > if (!is_kernel_addr((unsigned long)__pu_addr)) \ > > - might_sleep(); \ > > + might_fault(); \ > > __chk_user_ptr(ptr); \ > > __put_user_size((x), __pu_addr, (size), __pu_err); \ > > __pu_err; \ > > > > Another observation: > > if (!is_kernel_addr((unsigned long)__pu_addr)) > might_sleep(); > > is almost the same as > > might_fault(); > > except that it does not call might_lock_read(). > > The version above may have been put there intentionally and correctly, but > if you want to replace it with might_fault(), you should remove the > "if ()" condition. > > Arnd Good point, thanks. I think I'll do it in a separate patch on top, just to make sure bisect does not result in a revision that produces false positive warnings. -- MST -- 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>