linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation apis

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <52B4C4FF.1020009@ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:30:23 -0500
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Strashko, Grygorii" <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation
 apis

On Saturday 14 December 2013 02:48 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Saturday 14 December 2013 06:08 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello, Santosh.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:52:42PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>>> +static void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_internal(
>>>>> +				phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
>>>>> +				phys_addr_t min_addr, phys_addr_t max_addr,
>>>>> +				int nid)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	phys_addr_t alloc;
>>>>> +	void *ptr;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
>>>>> +		pr_warn("%s: usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE\n",
>>>>> +			__func__);
>>>>
>>>> Why not use WARN_ONCE()?  Also, shouldn't nid be set to NUMA_NO_NODE
>>>> here?
>>>>
>>> You want all the users using MAX_NUMNODES to know about it so that
>>> the wrong usage can be fixed. WARN_ONCE will hide that.
>>
>> Well, it doesn't really help anyone to be printing multiple messages
>> without any info on who was the caller and if this thing is gonna be
>> in mainline triggering of the warning should be rare anyway.  It's
>> more of a tool to gather one-off cases in the wild.  WARN_ONCE()
>> usually is the better choice as otherwise the warnings can swamp the
>> machine and console output in certain cases.
>>
> Fair enough.
>  
>>>> ...
>>>>> +	if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) {
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, the above test is broken.
>>>>
>>> So the idea was just to warn the users and allow them to fix
>>> the code. Well we are just allowing the existing users of using
>>> either MAX_NUMNODES or NUMA_NO_NODE continue to work. Thats what
>>> we discussed, right ?
>>
>> Huh?  Yeah, sure.  You're testing @nid against MAX_NUMNODES at the
>> beginning of the function.  If it's MAX_NUMNODES, you print a warning
>> but nothing else, so the if() conditional above, which should succeed,
>> would fail.  Am I missing sth here?
>>
> I get it now. Sorry I missed your point in first part. We will fix this.
> 
Posted an incremental fix based on above discussion. You have been
copied on the patch.

Regards,
Santosh
--
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/