On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 4:40 AM Ma Ke <[email protected]> wrote: > > To avoid the failure of alloc, we could check the return value of > kmalloc() and kzalloc().
Thanks, that's a good point, some suggestions below. And also a question for David Gow whenever he sees this. > > Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <[email protected]> > --- > lib/list-test.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/list-test.c b/lib/list-test.c > index 0cc27de9cec8..70e898976dbf 100644 > --- a/lib/list-test.c > +++ b/lib/list-test.c > @@ -27,9 +27,18 @@ static void list_test_list_init(struct kunit *test) > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&list2); > > list4 = kzalloc(sizeof(*list4), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL); > + if (!list4) { > + KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Initialising list4 failed.\n"); > + return; > + } Note: we can replace this with a one-liner KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, list4); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(list4); > > list5 = kmalloc(sizeof(*list5), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL); > + if (!list5) { > + kfree(list4); We can also replace this check with the one-liner KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, list5); But we'd need to migrate the kzalloc() call to use kunit_kzalloc(): kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*list4), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL); that way we don't have to manually free list4. I'm not sure why the original version didn't use the kunit helpers to begin with. Perhaps David would remember. A quick lazy ^F over the original patch didn't find anything afaict, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/T/#u > + KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Initialising list5 failed.\n"); > + return; > + } Daniel
