Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:22:52 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@linuxmail.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Broken kunmap calls in rc4-mm1.
Message-ID: <20041111192251.GB997@elf.ucw.cz>
References: <1100135825.7402.32.camel@desktop.cunninghams> <20041111012919.GD3217@holomorphy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041111012919.GD3217@holomorphy.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1235
Lines: 31

Hi!

> > That oops in kunmap got me thinking of my recent DEBUG_HIGHMEM
> > additions, so I want for a walk through the -mm4 patch, and found plenty
> > of instances of people making the same mistake I did... using the struct
> > page * in the call to kunmap, rather than the virtual address.
> > I guess the best way to handle it is find/notify the respective authors
> > of patches in the tree? The problems are in:
> > Reiser4 (lots)
> > CacheFS (lots)
> > afs
> > binfmt_elf
> > libata_core
> > (I'm hoping some of the above people will see this message and save me
> > some effort :>)
> 
> That only applies to kunmap_atomic(); kunmap()'s argument should be a page.

Is it just me or is having two very similar functions
(kunmap/kunmap_atomic) pretty counter-intuitive? Perhaps kunmap should
be renamed to kunmap_page() or something?

								Pavel
-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/