[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100728171327.GA24149@albatros>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:13:27 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] x86: mce: fix error handling
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 19:07 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On 7/28/2010 6:39 PM, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> >mcheck_init_device() poorly handles errors. If any request fails
> >unregister and free everything.
>
> Actually these are at early boot time and only contain memory errors,
> and if you run out of memory at this stage the system is usually
> dead in the water anyways. The best you can do at this stage
> is panicing, but silently returning from the the init function doesn't
> help anyone. But someone else will likely panic anyways.
>
> e.g. boot time allocations of cpu masks generally do not check for memory
> failures and I think that's ok, not a bug.
>
> Your patch would be good if the driver was modular, but it isn't.
I'm agree with you that if allocation fails at boot time, we are dead :)
But this coding style breaking rules that result from some functions
_must_ be checked for errors. Maybe we should add BUG_ON() here or
indicate someway that we have no ideas how to handle error?
--
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