[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1208090911100.15909@greybox.home>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:13:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Christoph Lameter (Open Source)" <cl@...ux.com>
To: Shuah Khan <shuah.khan@...com>
cc: penberg@...nel.org, glommer@...allels.com, js1304@...il.com,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
shuahkhan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Restructure kmem_cache_create() to move debug
cache integrity checks into a new function
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Shuah Khan wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
> +static int kmem_cache_sanity_check(const char *name, size_t size)
Why do we pass "size" in? AFAICT there is no need to.
> @@ -53,48 +93,17 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size, size_t align
> {
> 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);
> + pr_err("kmem_cache_create(%s) integrity check failed\n", name);
> goto out;
> }
> -#endif
>
If you move the above code into the sanity check function then you will be
using the size as well. These are also sanity checks after all.
--
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