[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1342407840.3190.5.camel@lorien2>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:04:00 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <shuah.khan@...com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, cl@...ux.com,
glommer@...allels.com, js1304@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shuahkhan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH TRIVIAL] mm: Fix build warning in kmem_cache_create()
On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 15:01 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> I'm not exactly loving that either.
>
> It'd probably be better to reshuffle the code so that the debug checks
> end up in separate functions that are no-op for !CONFIG_DEBUG_VM. That
> way the _labels_ are used unconditionally although there's no actual
> code generated.
I can work on reshuffling the code. Do have a question though. This
following sanity check is currently done only when CONFIG_DEBUG_VM is
defined. However, it does appear to be something that is that should be
checked even in regular path.
struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size,
size_t align,
unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *))
{
struct kmem_cache *s = NULL;
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
if (!name || in_interrupt() || size < sizeof(void *) ||
size > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE) {
printk(KERN_ERR "kmem_cache_create(%s) integrity check"
" failed\n", name);
goto out;
}
#endif
---
}
Am I reading this right?
Thanks,
-- Shuah
--
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