[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <422b2b56-499e-da5c-b071-7c5f2cd27569@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 08:31:47 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Cc: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/12] x86/mtrr: allocate mtrr_value array dynamically
On 3/20/23 06:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>
>>> @@ -750,6 +750,7 @@ static int __init mtrr_init_finialize(void)
>>> * TBD: is there any system with such CPU which supports
>>> * suspend/resume? If no, we should remove the code.
>>> */
>>> + mtrr_value = kcalloc(num_var_ranges, sizeof(*mtrr_value),
>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> Theoretically dynamic allocation can fail, although it should not
>> happen as this
>> happens during kernel boot and the size is small. Maybe a WARN()?
>
> Fine with me.
What *actually* happens if the system is running out of memory and this
is the _first_ failure? Does a WARN_ON() here help someone debug what
is going on?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists