On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Well, even SLUB checks for !name in mainline so that's definitely > worth including unconditionally. Furthermore, the size related checks > certainly make sense and I don't see any harm in having them as well.
There is a WARN_ON() there and then it returns NULL!!! Crazy. Causes a NULL pointer dereference later in the caller? > As for "in_interrupt()", I really don't see the point in keeping that > around. We could push it down to mm/slab.c in "__kmem_cache_create()" > if we wanted to. Ok we could do that but I guess we are in the discussion of how much checking should be done for a production kernel. I think these checks are way out of hand. We cannot afford to consistently check parameters to all kernel functions in production. We will only do these checks in a select manner if these values could result in serious difficult to debug problems. The checks in slab look like debugging code that someone needed for a specific debugging scenario. I can understand that we would keep that in for development but not for production. Maybe I am a bit biased but my prod kernels need to have minimal memory footprint due to excessive code size causing regressions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
