Re: [PATCH] slub: fix check_bytes() for slub debugging

[Pekka Enberg]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2011/8/9 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>>> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>>> > index eb5a8f9..5695f92 100644
>>> > --- a/mm/slub.c
>>> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
>>> > @@ -701,7 +701,7 @@ static u8 *check_bytes(u8 *start, u8 value, unsigned int bytes)
>>> >             return check_bytes8(start, value, bytes);
>>> >
>>> >     value64 = value | value << 8 | value << 16 | value << 24;
>>> > -   value64 = value64 | value64 << 32;
>>> > +   value64 = (value64 & 0xffffffff) | value64 << 32;
>>> >     prefix = 8 - ((unsigned long)start) % 8;
>>> >
>>> >     if (prefix) {
>>>
>>> Still buggy I am afraid. Could we use the following ?
>>>
>>>
>>>       value64 = value;
>>>       value64 |= value64 << 8;
>>>       value64 |= value64 << 16;
>>>       value64 |= value64 << 32;
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, 'buggy' was not well chosen.
>>
>> Another possibility would be to use a multiply if arch has a fast
>> multiplier...
>>
>>
>>        value64 = value;
>> #if defined(ARCH_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLIER) && BITS_PER_LONG == 64
>>        value64 *= 0x0101010101010101;
>> #elif defined(ARCH_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLIER)
>>        value64 *= 0x01010101;
>>        value64 |= value64 << 32;
>> #else
>>        value64 |= value64 << 8;
>>        value64 |= value64 << 16;
>>        value64 |= value64 << 32;
>> #endif
>
> I don't really care about which one should be used.  So tell me if I need
> to resend it with this improvement.

I'm confused. What was wrong with your original patch?

                        Pekka
--
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/