On Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:30 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > 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.
Hi Thierry Reding, There seems to be no objection. :-) Would you accept these patches? Thank you. Best regards, Jingoo Han -- 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
