| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 23:41:01 -0700 From: Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@...il.com> To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> Cc: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>, Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] regulator: bcm590xx: remove unnecessary OOM messages On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:12:20AM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote: > >> The probe method of this driver, on the other hand, performs several >> allocations and the error messages you intend to remove conveniently >> pinpoint which one failed. While the offsets in the trace could be >> used to derive the same information, I am skeptical that is enough to >> justify removing the messages. > > On the other hand how likely is anyone to care which particular > allocation triggered the OOM? I suppose you would only care if a failure was due to something unique about a specific allocation. For example, if someone made a foolish change to a structure that resulted in a request for substantially more memory, the messages would lead directly to the problem. The real question is whether this change improves the driver. To me, it seems like a draw. -- 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