Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> It's safe to call vfree() from rcu callback as in any other interrupt context.
> Commits you listed bellow didn't change anything in that respect.
> They made impossible to call vfree() under stuff like
> preempt_disable()/spin_lock()
I still cannot catch. According to
[+CC drm folks, see the following threads:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201703232349.bgb95898.qhlvffomtfo...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1490352808-7187-1-git-send-email-penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
]
On 03/24/2017 07:17 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Mar
On 03/27/2017 05:29 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> So to summarize. Yes, the drm callers can be fixed up, but IMO requiring
>> vfree() to be non-atomic is IMO not a good idea if avoidable.
>
> I agree.
>
> I don't know about drm code. But I can find AppArmor code doing
>
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 04:26:02PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> [+CC drm folks, see the following threads:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201703232349.bgb95898.qhlvffomtfo...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
>
>
Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> So to summarize. Yes, the drm callers can be fixed up, but IMO requiring
> vfree() to be non-atomic is IMO not a good idea if avoidable.
I agree.
I don't know about drm code. But I can find AppArmor code doing
kvfree() from dfa_free() from aa_dfa_free_kref() from
On 03/27/2017 03:26 PM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> [+CC drm folks, see the following threads:
>
>
