[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1494343107.20782.2.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 08:18:27 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
'Christophe JAILLET' <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com"
<vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: loop: Check for memory allocation failure
On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 17:35 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 05/08/2017 04:46 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 May 2017, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Each time -EPROBE_DEFER occurs, another set of calls to
> > > dsa_switch_alloc and dev_kzalloc also occurs.
> > >
> > > Perhaps it'd be better to do:
> > >
> > > if (ps->netdev) {
> > > devm_kfree(&devmdev->dev, ps);
> > > devm_kfree(&mdiodev->dev, ds);
> > > return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > > }
> >
> > Is EPROBE_DEFER handled differently than other kinds of errors?
>
> In the core device driver model, yes, EPROBE_DEFER is treated
> differently than other errors because it puts the driver on a retry queue.
>
> EPROBE_DEFER is already a slow and exceptional path, and this is a
> mock-up driver, so I am not sure what value there is in trying to
> balance devm_kzalloc() with corresponding devm_kfree()...
Example code should be as correct as possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists