search for: misimplementing

On 29 May 2013 11:08, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:00:33AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> Asserting is definitely the wrong thing here, since the >> guest can trigger it. > > So? So "guest should not be able to crash QEMU" is a standard rule: assert() is for QEMU bugs, not guest bugs. Virtio isn't any different

Il 29/05/2013 14:16, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: >>>> > >> If you really want to use offsetof like this you're >>>> > >> going to need to decorate the structs with QEMU_PACKED. >> > >>> > > Nope. >>> > > These structs are carefully designed not to have any padding. >> > >> > ...on every

Hi Lang, In PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build, around line 360, we have code looking like: … PBQP::Vector newCosts(g.getNodeCosts(node)); addPhysRegCoalesce(newCosts, pregOpt, cBenefit); g.setNodeCosts(node, newCosts); … I suspect the leak occurs around the setNodeCosts method, and I have trouble understanding how it handles the case where the node already has costs. It seems to

.... > It also alows maintainers to not care about their broken code. Most maintainers don't even know that it's broken. Out of 14 subsystems using __vmalloc with GFP_NOIO/NOFS, only 2 realized that its implementation is broken and implemented a workaround (me and the XFS developers). Misimplementing a function in a subtle and hard-to-notice way won't drive developers away from using it. > > > > He refuses 15-line patch to fix GFP_NOIO bug because he believes that in 4 > > > > years, the kernel will be refactored and GFP_NOIO will be eliminated. Why > > &gt...

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:53:17AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 29 May 2013 11:08, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:00:33AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> Asserting is definitely the wrong thing here, since the > >> guest can trigger it. > > > > So? > > So "guest should not be able to crash

On 29 May 2013 09:24, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > index f4db224..fd09ea7 100644 > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > @@ -467,51 +467,70 @@ static uint64_t virtio_pci_config_common_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, > { > VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; >

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11481 Bug ID: 11481 Summary: --ignore-errors must be a separate option Product: rsync Version: 3.1.2 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core Assignee: wayned at samba.org Reporter:

On Mon 23-04-18 20:25:15, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 23-04-18 10:06:08, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > > > > He didn't want to fix vmalloc(GFP_NOIO) > > > > > > > > I don't remember that conversation, so I don't know whether I agree with > > > > his

On Mon 23-04-18 20:25:15, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 23-04-18 10:06:08, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > > > > He didn't want to fix vmalloc(GFP_NOIO) > > > > > > > > I don't remember that conversation, so I don't know whether I agree with > > > > his

I haven''t had a chance to work on fixing multiple controller view paths recently. My original patch attempt was: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8582 It was rejected due to the fact that it was fixing the symptom more than the problem. However, I think it''s critical that this problem get fixed, otherwise the whole concept of view_paths is severely neutered and