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 <zhangyan...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> 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 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/
