netdev - Re: RFC: Remove unnecessary / duplicate OOM printks

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <20110825150456.fc8720c4.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:04:56 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Remove unnecessary / duplicate OOM printks

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:47:23 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> There are many thousands of printks for OOM conditions
> in kernel sources.
> 
> These are almost always a duplication of a generic
> OOM message from the mm subsystem.
> 
> The biggest difference between the generic OOM and
> the specific OOM uses is that most of the specific
> messages are emitted at KERN_ERR but the generic
> message is at KERN_WARNING.
> 
> Many KB of code/text could be removed from the kernel.
> 
> Removal can be gradual and done by subsystem.
> 
> Some kmalloc's that are followed on failure by vmalloc
> may need to add GFP_NOWARN.
> 
> Does anyone really believe the per site failure
> messages are useful or really want them to keep them?
> 

Kill 'em.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html