[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180706212327.GA10824@techadventures.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 23:23:27 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...hadventures.net>
To: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
bhe@...hat.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
osalvador@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/sparse.c: fix error path in sparse_add_one_section
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 01:06:58PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> The following commit in -next:
>
> commit 054620849110 ("mm/sparse.c: make sparse_init_one_section void and
> remove check")
>
> changed how the error handling in sparse_add_one_section() works.
>
> Previously sparse_index_init() could return -EEXIST, and the function would
> continue on happily. 'ret' would get unconditionally overwritten by the
> result from sparse_init_one_section() and the error code after the 'out:'
> label wouldn't be triggered.
My bad, I missed that.
> diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
> index 9574113fc745..d254bd2d3289 100644
> --- a/mm/sparse.c
> +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> @@ -753,8 +753,12 @@ int __meminit sparse_add_one_section(struct pglist_data *pgdat,
> * plus, it does a kmalloc
> */
> ret = sparse_index_init(section_nr, pgdat->node_id);
> - if (ret < 0 && ret != -EEXIST)
> - return ret;
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + if (ret == -EEXIST)
> + ret = 0;
> + else
> + return ret;
> + }
sparse_index_init() can return:
-ENOMEM, -EEXIST or 0.
So what about this?:
diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
index f55e79fda03e..eb188eb6b82d 100644
--- a/mm/sparse.c
+++ b/mm/sparse.c
@@ -770,6 +770,7 @@ int __meminit sparse_add_one_section(struct pglist_data *pgdat,
ret = sparse_index_init(section_nr, pgdat->node_id);
if (ret < 0 && ret != -EEXIST)
return ret;
+ ret = 0;
Does this look more clean?
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists