On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 10:32:26AM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
> From: Balbir singh <bsingharora@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:26:34 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] Correct a sample in memorybarriers.tex
>
> We probably don't want to show GFP_KERNEL allocation
> under spin_lock, GFP_ATOMIC seems much better.
>
> Signed-off-by: Balbir singh <bsingharora@xxxxxxxxx>
Good catch, applied, thank you!
However, I had to apply this by hand due to some recent mass changes to
figures containing code. Could you please move to current perfbook.git
for future submissions?
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> advsync/memorybarriers.tex | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/advsync/memorybarriers.tex b/advsync/memorybarriers.tex
> index 9eaa0ea..efbd4a2 100644
> --- a/advsync/memorybarriers.tex
> +++ b/advsync/memorybarriers.tex
> @@ -936,7 +936,7 @@ Then the following code might leak memory!
> \begin{verbatim}
> spin_lock(&mylock);
> if (p == NULL)
> - p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
> + p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_ATOMIC);
> spin_unlock(&mylock);
> \end{verbatim}
> \end{minipage}
> --
> 2.7.4
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe perfbook" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
