[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1195507022.27759.146.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:17:02 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
To: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] mm/sparse.c: Check the return value of
sparse_index_alloc().
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 21:54 +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> Since sparse_index_alloc() can return NULL on memory allocation failure,
> we must deal with the failure condition when calling it.
>
> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
> index e06f514..d245e59 100644
> --- a/mm/sparse.c
> +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> @@ -83,6 +83,8 @@ static int __meminit sparse_index_init(unsigned long section_nr, int nid)
> return -EEXIST;
>
> section = sparse_index_alloc(nid);
> + if (!section)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> /*
> * This lock keeps two different sections from
> * reallocating for the same index
Oddly enough, sparse_add_one_section() doesn't seem to like to check
its allocations. The usemap is checked, but not freed on error. If you
want to fix this up, I think it needs a little more love than just two
lines.
Do you want to try to add some actual error handling to
sparse_add_one_section()?
-- Dave
-
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