linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/4] mm: separate memory allocation and actual work in alloc_vmap

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0192c1984f42ad0a33e4c9aca04df90c97ebf412.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:40:45 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guroan@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/4] mm: separate memory allocation and actual work in
 alloc_vmap_area()

On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 10:13 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:07:18AM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Allocate a region of KVA of the specified size and alignment, within the
> > + * vstart and vend.
> > + */
> > +static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size,
> > +					 unsigned long align,
> > +					 unsigned long vstart,
> > +					 unsigned long vend,
> > +					 int node, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > +{
> > +	struct vmap_area *va;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	va = kmalloc_node(sizeof(struct vmap_area),
> > +			gfp_mask & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK, node);
> > +	if (unlikely(!va))
> > +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > +
> > +	ret = init_vmap_area(va, size, align, vstart, vend, node, gfp_mask);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		kfree(va);
> > +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return va;
> >  }
> >  
> > +
> 
> Another spurious blank line?

I don't think so.

I think it is the better style to separate
the error return from the normal return.

> With these two fixed,
> Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
>