On Tue, 15 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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? KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH is not a constant but may be less than 25. > Also, afaict kmalloc_slab() will totally mishandle the -1 return value and > will return a garbage kmem_cache*, via > > return &kmalloc_caches[index]; It does an if (index < 0) before getting to that statement. > Could you double-check it all please? It was already checked. - 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
