[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1009060155250.10552@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 01:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Kulikov Vasiliy <segooon@...il.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] mm: oom_kill: use IS_ERR() instead of strict
checking
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@...il.com>
> >
> > Use IS_ERR() instead of strict checking.
>
> Umm...
>
> I don't like this. IS_ERR() imply an argument is error code. but in
> this case, we don't use error code. -1 mean oom special purpose meaning
> value.
>
You could make the same argument by saying the current use of PTR_ERR()
implies an error code. We've simply hijacked -1UL for simplicity in this
case and because select_bad_process() can only return one other value
besides a pointer to a process or NULL.
> So, if we take this direction, It would be better to use EAGAIN or something
> instead -1.
>
I agree it would probably better to return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN) instead of
using -1UL.
--
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