On 26 February 2014 10:27, Jingoo Han <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:49 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 26 February 2014 06:39, Jingoo Han <[email protected]> wrote: >> > The site-specific OOM messages are unnecessary, because they >> > duplicate the MM subsystem generic OOM message. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <[email protected]> >> > --- >> > drivers/pwm/pwm-spear.c | 4 +--- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-spear.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-spear.c >> > index 8ad26b8..b4f6d0d 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-spear.c >> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-spear.c >> > @@ -179,10 +179,8 @@ static int spear_pwm_probe(struct platform_device >> > *pdev) >> > u32 val; >> > >> > pc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pc), GFP_KERNEL); >> > - if (!pc) { >> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to allocate memory\n"); >> >> Can you please pin point which/file line will print similar message ? > > (+cc Joe Perches, Andrew Morton) > > Sorry, I cannot pin point the exact file line. > As far as I know, the similar message will be printed, > because k.alloc and v.alloc failures use dump_stack().
I have tried tracing calls here and I am unable to find any such prints from these routines for majority of failure paths. So its better somebody tells me that I am wrong here :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
