On Mon, 14 May 2007 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -86,6 +87,9 @@ static inline int kmalloc_index(int size
> */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(size == 0);
>
> + if (size >= (1UL << KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH))
> + return -1;
> +
I don't quite understand why we did this. The subsequent logic in
kmalloc_index() should return -1 for this `size' anyway. If it doesn't,
it's bust, isn't it?
Also, afaict kmalloc_slab() will totally mishandle the -1 return value and
will return a garbage kmem_cache*, via
return &kmalloc_caches[index];
Could you double-check it all please?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
