linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] remove __must_check for res_counter_charge

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FB19D14.7080208@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 May 2012 09:02:28 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Han Ying <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hiroyuki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyuki@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] remove __must_check for res_counter_charge_nofail()

(2012/05/15 5:09), Tejun Heo wrote:

> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 06:53:08PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> I picked this up from Costa's slub memcg series. For fixing added warning
>> by patch 4.
>> ==
>> From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH 6/6] remove __must_check for res_counter_charge_nofail()
>>
>> Since we will succeed with the allocation no matter what, there
>> isn't the need to use __must_check with it. It can very well
>> be optional.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
>> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> 
> For 3-6,
> 
>  Reviewed-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> 
> Thanks a lot for doing this.  This doesn't solve all the failure paths
> tho.  ie. what about -EINTR failures from lock contention?
> pre_destroy() would probably need delay and retry logic with
> WARN_ON_ONCE() on !-EINTR failures.
> 


Yes, I'll do more work. I tend to split series, sorry.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/