Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751759Ab3IPV2j (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:28:39 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:45493 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751640Ab3IPV2P (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:28:15 -0400 Message-ID: <523766E1.1020303@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:15:29 -0400 From: KOSAKI Motohiro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, rientjes@google.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/4] mm/vmalloc: revert "mm/vmalloc.c: emit the failure message before return" References: <1379202342-23140-1-git-send-email-liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1379202342-23140-2-git-send-email-liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1379202342-23140-2-git-send-email-liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1411 Lines: 49 On 9/14/2013 7:45 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote: > Changelog: > *v2 -> v3: revert commit 46c001a2 directly > > Don't warning twice in __vmalloc_area_node and __vmalloc_node_range if > __vmalloc_area_node allocation failure. This patch revert commit 46c001a2 > (mm/vmalloc.c: emit the failure message before return). > > Reviewed-by: Zhang Yanfei > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li > --- > mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > index d78d117..e3ec8b4 100644 > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > @@ -1635,7 +1635,7 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align, > > addr = __vmalloc_area_node(area, gfp_mask, prot, node, caller); > if (!addr) > - goto fail; > + return NULL; This is not right fix. Now we have following call stack. __vmalloc_node __vmalloc_node_range __vmalloc_node Even if we remove a warning of __vmalloc_node_range, we still be able to see double warning because we call __vmalloc_node recursively. I haven't catch your point why twice warning is unacceptable though. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/