On (07/12/15 23:33), Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:47:32AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Yes, but the main difference here is that it seems that shrinker users
> > don't tend to treat shrinker registration failures as fatal errors and
> > just continue with shrinker functionality disabled. And it makes sense.
> >
> > (copy paste from https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/9/751)
> >
>
> I hearily disagree. It's not any less critical than other failures.
Why? In some sense, shrinker callbacks are just a way to be nice.
No one writes a driver just to be able to handle shrinker calls. An
ability to react to those calls is just additional option; it does
not directly affect or limit driver's functionality (at least, it
really should not).
> The right way forward is to handle register failure properly.
In other words, to
(a) keep a flag to signify that register was not successful
or
(b) look at ->shrinker.list.next or ->nr_deferred
or
(c) treat register failures as critical errors. (I sort of
disagree with you here).
-ss
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
