[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c32b2f1-a4d2-a079-f93c-ef6efe909449@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:38:19 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Cc: 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>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
Peter Chen <peter.chen@....com>
Subject: Re: USB: hub: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation
in usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer()
>>>> 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.
I imagine that this depends on details if a backtrace could eventually
be configured for your specific needs.
> The memory allocation routines do not for what purpose
> the memory is being allocated;
Do you want an improved accounting for these purposes?
> hence when a failure occurs they cannot tell what device
> (or other part of the system) will be affected.
I know that other programs can provide dumps for function call
stacks where the parameters which were passed in previous calls
could be decoded to some degree.
> That's why we have a secondary error message.
I am curious on how the relevance of such messages will be interpreted
by other developers in this software area.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists