[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090730183558.GA11763@logfs.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:35:59 +0200
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: Add kmalloc NULL tests
On Thu, 30 July 2009 17:36:58 +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:10:22PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> > index 7b5d4de..972e427 100644
> > --- a/mm/slab.c
> > +++ b/mm/slab.c
> > @@ -1502,6 +1502,7 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
> >
> > ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct arraycache_init), GFP_NOWAIT);
> >
> > + BUG_ON(!ptr);
> > BUG_ON(cpu_cache_get(&cache_cache) != &initarray_cache.cache);
> > memcpy(ptr, cpu_cache_get(&cache_cache),
> > sizeof(struct arraycache_init));
>
> This does not change the end result when the allocation fails: you get
> a stacktrace and a kernel panic. Leaving it as is saves a line of
> code.
According to http://lwn.net/Articles/342420/, there may be a subtle
difference.
Jörn
--
"Error protection by error detection and correction."
-- from a university class
--
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