Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Add check for node passed to node_to_cpumaskV3

[Ingo Molnar]

* Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > * Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Add check for node passed to node_to_cpumask V3
> >>
> >>   * When CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS is set, the node passed to
> >>     node_to_cpumask and node_to_cpumask_ptr should be validated.
> >>     If invalid, then a dump_stack is performed and a zero cpumask
> >>     is returned.
> >>
> >> Based on "Fri Jun 27 10:06:06 PDT 2008" tip/master...  ;-)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> V2: Slightly different version to remove a compiler warning.
> >> V3: Redone to reflect moving setup.c -> setup_percpu.c
> >
> > applied to tip/x86/unify-setup - thanks Mike.
> >
> > Vegard, can i add your Acked-by too?
> 
> To be honest, I'd prefer that the function returns a const pointer. 
> Mike and I have both reviewed all callers independently and concluded 
> that there is no problem in doing this, and that, in fact, this is the 
> correct way to deal with it.
> 
> So if Mike submits a V4 with this const return type, or another patch 
> on top of this one, I'll ack it :-)

ok, i'll wait for v4 :)

(v3 is applied already so Mike please send a delta to v3.)

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/