On 2/27/2015 3:54 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:52:56 -0800 Danesh Petigara <dpetigara@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 2/27/2015 1:24 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:39:45 -0800 Danesh Petigara <dpetigara@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> The CMA aligned offset calculation is incorrect for >>>> non-zero order_per_bit values. >>>> >>>> For example, if cma->order_per_bit=1, cma->base_pfn= >>>> 0x2f800000 and align_order=12, the function returns >>>> a value of 0x17c00 instead of 0x400. >>>> >>>> This patch fixes the CMA aligned offset calculation. >>> >>> When fixing a bug please always describe the end-user visible effects >>> of that bug. >>> >>> Without that information others are unable to understand why you are >>> recommending a -stable backport. >>> >> >> Thank you for the feedback. I had no crash logs to show, nevertheless, I >> agree that a sentence describing potential effects of the bug would've >> helped. > > What was the reason for adding a cc:stable? > It was added since the commit that introduced the incorrect logic (b5be83e) was already picked up by v3.19. Thanks, Danesh -- 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>