[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171215125735.1d74c7a04c05d91f27ffdbd7@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:57:35 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: JianKang Chen <chenjiankang1@...wei.com>,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, hannes@...xchg.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xieyisheng1@...wei.com, guohanjun@...wei.com,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] mm/page_alloc: fix comment is __get_free_pages
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:36:18 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > So do we care and I will resend the patch in that case or I just drop
> > > this from my patch queue?
> >
> > Well.. I still think that silently accepting bad input would be bad
> > practice. If we can just delete the assertion and have such a caller
> > reliably blow up later on then that's good enough.
>
> The point is that if the caller checks for the failed allocation then
> the result is a memory leak.
That's if page_address(highmem page) returns NULL. I'm not sure what
it returns, really - so many different implementations across so many
different architectures.
Oh well, it would have been nice to remove that VM_BUG_ON(). Why not
just leave the code as it is now?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists