Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] slab: __GFP_ZERO is incompatible with a constructor

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 12:34 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 02:22:57PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:13:22PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > __GFP_ZERO requests that the object be initialised to all-zeroes,
> > > while the purpose of a constructor is to initialise an object to a
> > > particular pattern.  We cannot do both.  Add a warning to catch any
> > > users who mistakenly pass a __GFP_ZERO flag when allocating a slab with
> > > a constructor.
> > >
> > > Fixes: d07dbea46405 ("Slab allocators: support __GFP_ZERO in all allocators")
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Seen with v4.18-rc7-139-gef46808 and v4.18-rc7-178-g0b5b1f9a78b5 when
> > booting sh4 images in qemu:
>
> Thanks!  It's under discussion here:
>
> https://marc.info/?t=153301426900002&r=1&w=2

and https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sh/msg53298.html

> also reported here with a bogus backtrace:
>
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=153305755505935&w=2
>
> Short version: It's a bug that's been present since 2009 and nobody
> noticed until now.  And nobody's quite sure what the effect of this
> bug is.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds