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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 4 Apr 2017 09:30:56 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <>
To:     Reza Arbab <>
Cc:, Andrew Morton <>,
        Mel Gorman <>, Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <>,
        Yasuaki Ishimatsu <>,
        Tang Chen <>,,
        Kani Toshimitsu <>,,
        Joonsoo Kim <>,
        Andi Kleen <>,
        Zhang Zhen <>,
        David Rientjes <>,
        Daniel Kiper <>,
        Igor Mammedov <>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <>,
        LKML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm: remove return value from

On Mon 03-04-17 16:22:32, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 01:54:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >init_currently_empty_zone doesn't have any error to return yet it is
> >still an int and callers try to be defensive and try to handle potential
> >error. Remove this nonsense and simplify all callers.
> Semi-related; arch_remove_memory() returns int, but callers ignore it.
> Is that worth cleaning up? If so, should the implementations be simplified,
> or should we maybe do a pr_error() or something with it?

No, pr_error is not really helpful. Either that path can fail and we
should handle it properly - which will be hard because remove_memory
cannot handle that or we should just make arch_remove_memory
non-failing. I have a suspicion that this path doesn't really fail
in fact. This requires a deeper inspection though. I've put that on my
todo list.

Michal Hocko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists