2017-12-28 03:40:57

by Wei Yongjun

Subject: [PATCH -next] xen/pvcalls: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock

A spin lock is taken here so we should use GFP_ATOMIC.

Fixes: 9774c6cca266 ("xen/pvcalls: implement accept command")
Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>
---
drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c
index 0c1ec68..dfd00d9 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c
@@ -807,7 +807,7 @@ int pvcalls_front_accept(struct socket *sock, struct socket *newsock, int flags)
pvcalls_exit();
return ret;
}
- map2 = kzalloc(sizeof(*map2), GFP_KERNEL);
+ map2 = kzalloc(sizeof(*map2), GFP_ATOMIC);
if (map2 == NULL) {
clear_bit(PVCALLS_FLAG_ACCEPT_INFLIGHT,
(void *)&map->passive.flags);

2018-01-02 08:36:00

by Jürgen Groß

Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] xen/pvcalls: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock

On 28/12/17 04:46, Wei Yongjun wrote:
> A spin lock is taken here so we should use GFP_ATOMIC.
>
> Fixes: 9774c6cca266 ("xen/pvcalls: implement accept command")
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>


Juergen

2018-01-02 18:23:26

by Boris Ostrovsky

Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] xen/pvcalls: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock

On 12/27/2017 10:46 PM, Wei Yongjun wrote:
> A spin lock is taken here so we should use GFP_ATOMIC.
>
> Fixes: 9774c6cca266 ("xen/pvcalls: implement accept command")
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>

Applied to for-linus-4.15

-boris