[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080305194705.GA4386@ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:47:06 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, andi@...stfloor.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86, fpu: lazy allocation of FPU area - v3
On Tue 2008-03-04 09:55:28, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 11:32:20AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 08:20:12PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 03:02:46PM -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Memory allocation at the first usage of the FPU and other state.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (!tsk->thread.xstate)
> > > > > + tsk->thread.xstate = kmem_cache_alloc(task_xstate_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > >
> > > > Also don't we need some kind of error handling here?
> > >
> > > Currently it uses SLAB_PANIC.
> >
> > but SLAB_PANIC only covers kmem_cache_create() failures.
> >
> > kmem_cache_alloc() can fail (return NULL) and not handling it is a bug.
>
> oops. you are correct. Will send a sigsegv in the failure case then. Thanks.
You are introducing possibility of hard to debug error, where previous
code just worked... Does not look like good idea to me.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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