Re: + of-fix-kmemleak-crash-caused-by-imbalance-in-early-memory-reservation.patch added to -mm tree

* Re: + of-fix-kmemleak-crash-caused-by-imbalance-in-early-memory-reservation.patch added to -mm tree
       [not found]   ` <f1fb5579-785f-2c4d-3801-8fb2dde4bc08@samsung.com>
@ 2019-02-26 10:04     ` Marc Gonzalez
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Marc Gonzalez @ 2019-02-26 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marek Szyprowski, Mike Rapoport
  Cc: Rob Herring, Prateek Patel, Frank Rowand, Catalin Marinas, LKML

On 21/02/2019 12:13, Marek Szyprowski wrote:

> On 2019-02-13 21:13, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> 
>> --- a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c~of-fix-kmemleak-crash-caused-by-imbalance-in-early-memory-reservation
>> +++ a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
>> @@ -34,22 +34,15 @@ int __init __weak early_init_dt_alloc_re
>>  
>>  	end = !end ? MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE : end;
>>  	align = !align ? SMP_CACHE_BYTES : align;
>> -	base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(size, align, 0, end);
>> +	base = memblock_find_in_range(size, align, start, end);
> 
> The parameters for memblock_find_in_range() are not in the correct
> order. The proper call should be:
> 
> 	memblock_find_in_range(start, end, size, align)

How is it possible that calling memblock_find_in_range() with incorrect parameters
"fixed" the crash? o_O

Regards.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread