[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1712061700550.1507-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:02:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
Dmitry Fleytman <dmitry@...nix.com>,
Eugene Korenevsky <ekorenevsky@...il.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Günter Röck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Chen <peter.chen@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: USB: hub: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation
in usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer()
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> Does the existing memory allocation error message include the
> >>> &udev->dev device name and driver name? If it doesn't, there will be
> >>> no way for the user to tell that the error message is related to the
> >>> device failure.
> >>
> >> No, but the effect is similar.
> >>
> >> OOM does a dump_stack() so this function's call tree is shown.
> >
> > A call stack doesn't tell you which device was being handled.
>
> Do you find a default Linux allocation failure report insufficient then?
>
> Would you like to to achieve that the requested information can be determined
> from a backtrace?
It is not practical to do this. The memory allocation routines do not
for what purpose the memory is being allocated; hence when a failure
occurs they cannot tell what device (or other part of the system) will
be affected.
That's why we have a secondary error message.
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists