Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:24:47 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, hpa@zytor.com,
       tglx@linutronix.de, andi@firstfloor.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86, fpu: lazy allocation of FPU area - v3
Message-ID: <20080306202446.GA4225@ucw.cz>
References: <20080303230335.892214000@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080303230336.042604000@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080304012012.GB22431@infradead.org> <20080304014306.GC28006@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080304103220.GA17621@elte.hu> <20080304175528.GD28006@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080305194705.GA4386@ucw.cz> <20080306155141.GA23340@elte.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080306155141.GA23340@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1014
Lines: 26

On Thu 2008-03-06 16:51:41, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> 
> > > > kmem_cache_alloc() can fail (return NULL) and not handling it is a 
> > > > bug.
> > > 
> > > oops. you are correct. Will send a sigsegv in the failure case then. 
> > > Thanks.
> > 
> > You are introducing possibility of hard to debug error, where previous 
> > code just worked... Does not look like good idea to me.
> 
> hm, how does it differ from any other allocation failure? We could fail 

Well, we should not be sending SIGSEGV...? SIGBUS would be cleaner, or
SIGKILL... what happens when userland tries to catch this one?

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/