| Message ID | e22ee16a-5f34-46bd-577f-9b7ca75e9035@users.sourceforge.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
On 08/07/2017 03:52 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:37:01 +0200 > > Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function. > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. NACK When a user asks me for help I would certainly like to get 'Could not allocate cache tags' as apposed to nothing, since the return value of ps3vram_cache_init() is not checked. If you want to make an improvement please add a check for success of ps3vram_cache_init() in ps3vram_probe(). -Geoff
On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 08:10 -0700, Geoff Levand wrote: > On 08/07/2017 03:52 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function. > NACK > > When a user asks me for help I would certainly like to get > 'Could not allocate cache tags' as apposed to nothing, since > the return value of ps3vram_cache_init() is not checked. You still get a dump_stack on alloc failure.
>> Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function. >> >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > NACK > > When a user asks me for help I would certainly like to get > 'Could not allocate cache tags' as apposed to nothing, Do you find the default allocation failure report insufficient? > since the return value of ps3vram_cache_init() is not checked. Are there any more update candidates to consider for better exception handling? Regards, Markus
On 08/07/2017 09:27 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function. >>> >>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. >> >> NACK >> >> When a user asks me for help I would certainly like to get >> 'Could not allocate cache tags' as apposed to nothing, > > Do you find the default allocation failure report insufficient? The default is OK. I didn't consider one would be triggered by the kzalloc failure. >> since the return value of ps3vram_cache_init() is not checked. > > Are there any more update candidates to consider for better exception handling? The return of ps3vram_cache_init() should be checked. Feel free to propose others. -Geoff
>> Do you find the default allocation failure report insufficient? > > The default is OK. Thanks for this information. > I didn't consider one would be triggered by the kzalloc failure. Do you reconsider any special system settings for further software evolution then? Regards, Markus
On 08/07/2017 11:34 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I didn't consider one would be triggered by the kzalloc failure. > > Do you reconsider any special system settings for further > software evolution then? Sorry, I don't quite understand your question. I think your original patch is OK, and I would appreciate if you added a check for failure of ps3vram_cache_init() in ps3vram_probe(). If you decide not to add that check I'll create a patch for it later. If this doesn't answer your question, could you please rephrase it? -Geoff
>>> I didn't consider one would be triggered by the kzalloc failure. >> >> Do you reconsider any special system settings for further >> software evolution then? > > Sorry, I don't quite understand your question. Do you try to configure the Linux error reporting to any special needs? > I think your original patch is OK, How does this feedback fit to the initial response “Not Applicable”? https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/798575/ > and I would appreciate if you added a check for failure of ps3vram_cache_init() > in ps3vram_probe(). I unsure if this adjustment will need more software updates. > If you decide not to add that check I'll create a patch for it later. I am curious on who will pick this update candidate up as the next improvement. Have you got any preferences for the exception handling there? Regards, Markus
On 08/07/2017 12:04 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I think your original patch is OK, > > How does this feedback fit to the initial response “Not Applicable”? > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/798575/ I submitted your patch and a fix to ps3vram_probe() with the other patches in my queue. Thanks for your contribution. -Geoff
SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> writes: >>>> I didn't consider one would be triggered by the kzalloc failure. >>> >>> Do you reconsider any special system settings for further >>> software evolution then? >> >> Sorry, I don't quite understand your question. > > Do you try to configure the Linux error reporting to any special needs? > > >> I think your original patch is OK, > > How does this feedback fit to the initial response “Not Applicable”? > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/798575/ That comes from me, and means "I can't apply this patch", because it's not a powerpc patch. Looking at the maintainers output though maybe that is meant to go via the powerpc tree. cheers
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/798575/ > > I submitted your patch Thanks for your constructive feedback. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/798850/ > and a fix to ps3vram_probe() with the other patches in my queue. I find it nice that you picked this change opportunity up after a bit of discussion (before an other developer would eventually have tackled it also). “Check return of ps3vram_cache_init” https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/798853/ 1. Unfortunately, I find that this specific update suggestion does not fit to the Linux coding style convention. “… Do not unnecessarily use braces where a single statement will do. …” 2. How do you think about to use the check “if (error)” instead? 3. Will an additional commit description be useful? Regards, Markus
diff --git a/drivers/block/ps3vram.c b/drivers/block/ps3vram.c index e0e81cacd781..ba97d037279e 100644 --- a/drivers/block/ps3vram.c +++ b/drivers/block/ps3vram.c @@ -409,10 +409,8 @@ static int ps3vram_cache_init(struct ps3_system_bus_device *dev) priv->cache.page_size = CACHE_PAGE_SIZE; priv->cache.tags = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ps3vram_tag) * CACHE_PAGE_COUNT, GFP_KERNEL); - if (priv->cache.tags == NULL) { - dev_err(&dev->core, "Could not allocate cache tags\n"); + if (!priv->cache.tags) return -ENOMEM; - } dev_info(&dev->core, "Created ram cache: %d entries, %d KiB each\n", CACHE_PAGE_COUNT, CACHE_PAGE_SIZE / 1024);