On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> The sock slab cache is critical so one ought to panic if it can't be
> created, like we do for all other slab caches.
>
> Regards,
> Tigran
>
> --- linux/net/core/sock.c Thu Aug 24 08:08:47 2000
> +++ work/net/core/sock.c Wed Aug 30 13:13:48 2000
> @@ -609,7 +609,9 @@
> {
> sk_cachep = kmem_cache_create("sock", sizeof(struct sock), 0,
> SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, 0, 0);
> -
> + if (!sk_cachep)
> + panic("Cannot create sock SLAB cache");
> +
> if (num_physpages <= 4096) {
> sysctl_wmem_max = 32767;
> sysctl_rmem_max = 32767;
Just a little suggestion, because lots of patches similar to this have
been floating around recently.
Wouldn't it be better if we move the null pointer test and the panic()
inside kmem_cache_create() similar to this
------------
kmem_cache_t *kmem_cache_create(...)
{
...
opps:
if (!cachep) {
sprintf(panic_msg, "Cannot create %.20s SLAB cache",
name);
panic(panic_msg);
}
return cachep;
}
------------
A quick check showed that we have over 50 calls to kmem_cache_create().
Doing the above would save a reasonable amount of code and text segment
space.
Regards,
Matze
--
Matthias Hanisch mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: +49 8137 935-219
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
