[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070802030350.GF21219@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:03:50 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
Eric Moore <Eric.Moore@....com>, DL-MPTFusionLinux@....com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
support@....com, mpt_linux_developer@....com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix two potential mem leaks in MPT Fusion (mpt_attach())
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 05:26:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Why on earth is that using GFP_ATOMIC? This function later goes on to
> create procfs files and such things.
Seems fairly common in driver initialisation code. I removed three
instances of this in the advansys driver.
> y'know, we could have a debug option which will spit warnings if someone
> does a !__GFP_WAIT allocation while !in_atomic() (only works if
> CONFIG_PREEMPT).
>
> But please, make it depend on !CONFIG_AKPM. I shudder to think about all
> the stuff it would pick up.
Seems like you'd get a lot of false positives. How about a call:
slab_warn_about_atomic_allocs();
right before calling the initcalls, and then
slab_stop_warning_about_atomic_allocs();
after calling them? That should give people a lot to chew on for a few
months. Obviously, you would need to not warn about allocations from
interrupt context, as you say above.
--
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists