Hello, On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > I am sorry, I don't take any test for the patch attached in previous > mail, and it can't fix the bug completely, please ignore it I > provide a new patch attached in this mail which pass test and can > fix the issue described below > > __next_mem_range_rev() defined in mm/memblock.c doesn't Achieve > desired purpose if parameter type_b ==NULL This new patch can fix > the issue and get the last reversed region contained in type_a > rightly
Can you please flow future mails to 80 column? > The new patch is descripted as follows > > From 0e242eda7696f176a9a2e585a1db01f0575b39c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: zijun_hu <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:06:57 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] mm/memblock.c: fix index adjustment error in > __next_mem_range_rev() > > fix region index adjustment error when parameter type_b of > __next_mem_range_rev() == NULL The patch is now fixing two bugs. It'd be nice to describe each in the description and how the patch was tested. > @@ -991,7 +991,11 @@ void __init_memblock __next_mem_range_rev(u64 *idx, int > nid, ulong flags, > > if (*idx == (u64)ULLONG_MAX) { > idx_a = type_a->cnt - 1; > - idx_b = type_b->cnt; > + /* in order to get the last reversed region rightly */ Before, it would trigger null deref. I don't think the above comment is necessary. > + if (type_b != NULL) > + idx_b = type_b->cnt; > + else > + idx_b = 0; > } > > for (; idx_a >= 0; idx_a--) { > @@ -1024,7 +1028,7 @@ void __init_memblock __next_mem_range_rev(u64 *idx, int > nid, ulong flags, > *out_end = m_end; > if (out_nid) > *out_nid = m_nid; > - idx_a++; > + idx_a--; > *idx = (u32)idx_a | (u64)idx_b << 32; > return; > } Both changes look good to me. Provided the changes are tested, Acked-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]> Thanks. -- tejun
