[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F85EEED.1090906@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:51:57 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove BUG() in possible but rare condition
On 04/11/2012 05:26 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>> > failed:
>> > - BUG();
>> > unlock_page(page);
>> > page_cache_release(page);
>> > return NULL;
> Cute.
>
> AFAICT what happened was that in my April 2002 rewrite of this code I
> put a non-fatal buffer_error() warning in that case to tell us that
> something bad happened.
>
> Years later we removed the temporary buffer_error() and mistakenly
> replaced that warning with a BUG(). Only it*can* happen.
>
> We can remove the BUG() and fix up callers, or we can pass retry=1 into
> alloc_page_buffers(), so grow_dev_page() "cannot fail". Immortal
> functions are a silly fiction, so we should remove the BUG() and fix up
> callers.
>
Any particular caller you are concerned with ?
As I mentioned, this function already returns NULL for other reason -
that seem even more probable than this specific failure. So whoever is
not checking this return value, is already broken without this patch as
well.
--
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