From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DE86B0032 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:55:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by padfa1 with SMTP id fa1so26486896pad.2 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:55:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org. [140.211.169.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pt4si5033157pbc.218.2015.02.27.15.54.59 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:55:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:54:58 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: cma: fix CMA aligned offset calculation Message-Id: <20150227155458.697b7701d0a67ff7b4f3d9cb@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <54F10358.1050102@broadcom.com> References: <1424821185-16956-1-git-send-email-dpetigara@broadcom.com> <20150227132443.e17d574d45451f10f413f065@linux-foundation.org> <54F10358.1050102@broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Danesh Petigara Cc: m.szyprowski@samsung.com, mina86@mina86.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com, gregory.0xf0@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:52:56 -0800 Danesh Petigara wrote: > On 2/27/2015 1:24 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:39:45 -0800 Danesh Petigara wrote: > > > >> The CMA aligned offset calculation is incorrect for > >> non-zero order_per_bit values. > >> > >> For example, if cma->order_per_bit=1, cma->base_pfn= > >> 0x2f800000 and align_order=12, the function returns > >> a value of 0x17c00 instead of 0x400. > >> > >> This patch fixes the CMA aligned offset calculation. > > > > When fixing a bug please always describe the end-user visible effects > > of that bug. > > > > Without that information others are unable to understand why you are > > recommending a -stable backport. > > > > Thank you for the feedback. I had no crash logs to show, nevertheless, I > agree that a sentence describing potential effects of the bug would've > helped. What was the reason for adding a cc:stable? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org