On 2020/5/29 15:09, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:31:08AM +0800, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
--- a/kernel/sysctl.c
+++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
@@ -3358,6 +3358,25 @@ int __init sysctl_init(void)
kmemleak_not_leak(hdr);
return 0;
}
+
+/*
+ * The sysctl interface is used to modify the interface value,
+ * but the feature interface has default values. Even if register_sysctl fails,
+ * the feature body function can also run. At the same time, malloc small
+ * fragment of memory during the system initialization phase, almost does
+ * not fail. Therefore, the function return is designed as void
+ */
Let's use kdoc while at it. Can you convert this to proper kdoc?
Sorry, I do n’t know the format requirements of Kdoc, can you give me
some tips for writing?
+void __init register_sysctl_init(const char *path, struct ctl_table *table,
+ const char *table_name)
+{
+ struct ctl_table_header *hdr = register_sysctl(path, table);
+
+ if (unlikely(!hdr)) {
+ pr_err("failed when register_sysctl %s to %s\n", table_name,
path);
+ return;
table_name is only used for this, however we can easily just make
another _register_sysctl_init() helper first, and then use a macro
which will concatenate this to something useful if you want to print
a string. I see no point in the description for this, specially since
the way it was used was not to be descriptive, but instead just a name
followed by some underscore and something else.
Good idea, I will fix and send the patch to you as soon as possible
+ }
+ kmemleak_not_leak(hdr);
Is it *wrong* to run kmemleak_not_leak() when hdr was not allocated?
If so, can you fix the sysctl __init call itself?
I don't understand here, do you mean that register_sysctl_init () does
not need to call kmemleak_not_leak (hdr), or does it mean to add check
hdr before calling kmemleak_not_leak (hdr) in sysctl_init ()?
PS. Since you have given me your series, feel free to send me a patch
as a follow up to this in privae and I can integrate it into my tree.
Luis
Thanks
Xiaoming Ni
