Hi Viresh, On Thursday 06 March 2014 00:17:38 Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 5 March 2014 19:00, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Sure, but I wasn't sure whether all error code paths in kmalloc() resulted > > in an OOM message. For instance, the following code path results in an > > allocation failure but doesn't seem to print an OOM message: > > > > kmalloc > > __kmalloc > > __do_kmalloc > > slab_alloc > > slab_should_failslab > > should_failslab > > should_fail > > > > A bit far-fetched possibly as it requires fault injection. I haven't found > > any other such code path, but my understanding of that code is a bit > > limited. > > In that case should we actually accept patches like this at all? As they > might be ending up removing some useful print messages?
Dan has pointed out that I've missed the fail_dump() call in should_fail(). One could argue that fail_dump() wouldn't print any message if the fault injection framework has verbosity set to 0, but I suppose we can assume that people using the fault injection framework know what they're doing. All other error paths in kmalloc() seem to result in a message being printed. I might have missed something, but I can trust the developers who know that code much better than I do that kmalloc() is designed to print an error message in all error paths. Any failure to print a message would be a kmalloc() bug that should be fixed, and getting rid of the allocation error messages in drivers would seem like a nice cleanup to me. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
