On 07/15/2013 11:16 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Chen Gang wrote: > >> > On 07/12/2013 09:49 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: >>> > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Chen Gang wrote: >>> > > >>>> > >> Since alloc_loc_track() will alloc additional space, and already knows >>>> > >> about 'max', so need be sure of 'max' must be larger than 't->count'. >>> > > >>> > > alloc_loc_track is only called if t->count > max from add_location: >>> > > >> > >> > For add_location(), if "t->count > t->max", it calls alloc_loc_track() >> > with "max == 2 * t->max". >> > >> > In this case we need be sure that "t->count < 2 * t->max". > We are sure about that since t->count is always incremented by one and > then checked against t->max. The location database is build up from a > single hardware thread without any concurrency. > > So we do not really need this patch. > > > Hmm... what you says above is reasonable. In this case, since alloc_loc_track() is a static function, it will depend on the related maintainers' willing and opinions to decide whether add the related check or not (just like add 'BUG_ON' or not). I need respect the original related maintainers' willing and opinions. Thanks. -- Chen Gang -- 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>