[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALF0-+X_L-wJs9TSsotEDrJ-jbQ9+JBLxqyRDWBdNqgXujthOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 17:40:47 -0300
From: Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
kernelnewbies <kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: Question about printking
Hi Joe,
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 16:30 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>> ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(foo));
>> if (!ptr) {
>> pr_err("Cannot allocate memory for foo\n");
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> }
>> His argue against it was that kmalloc already takes care of reporting/printking
>> a good deal of interesting information when this happens.
>
>> Can someone expand a bit on this whole idea? (of abuse of printing,
>> or futility of printing).
>
> k.alloc() takes a GFP_ flag as an arg.
>
> One of those GFP flags is __GFP_NOWARN.
>
> For all failed allocs without GFP_NOWARN
> a message is emitted and a dump_stack is
> done.
>
> (see: mm/page_alloc.c warn_alloc_failed())
>
> So, most all of these printks after
> k.alloc()'s are not necessary.
>
>
Thanks for the explanation.
BTW, I see you've made some patches to fix exactly this.
Nice job.
Regards,
--
Ezequiel
--
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