Am 22.11.18 um 17:51 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into
> callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier
> implementation might fail when it's not allowed to.
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Christian König" <[email protected]>
> Cc: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>

Acked-by: Christian König <[email protected]>

> ---
>   mm/mmu_notifier.c | 2 ++
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> index 5119ff846769..59e102589a25 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -190,6 +190,8 @@ int __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct 
> mm_struct *mm,
>                               pr_info("%pS callback failed with %d in 
> %sblockable context.\n",
>                                               
> mn->ops->invalidate_range_start, _ret,
>                                               !blockable ? "non-" : "");
> +                             WARN(blockable,"%pS callback failure not 
> allowed\n",
> +                                  mn->ops->invalidate_range_start);
>                               ret = _ret;
>                       }
>               }

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Reply via email to