Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: cma: introduce /proc/cmainfo

From: Michal Nazarewicz
Date: Mon Dec 29 2014 - 12:26:16 EST

>> On Fri, Dec 26 2014, "Stefan I. Strogin" <s.strogin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + pr_warn("%s(): cma_buffer_list_add() returned %d\n",
>>> + __func__, ret);
>>> + cma_release(cma, page, count);
>>> + page = NULL;

> On 12/26/2014 07:02 PM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> Harsh, but ok, if you want.

On Mon, Dec 29 2014, Stefan Strogin wrote:
> Excuse me, maybe you could suggest how to make a nicer fallback?
> Or sure OK?

I would leave the allocation succeed and print warning that the debug
information is invalid. You could have a âdirtyâ flag which is set if
that happens (or on a partial release discussed earlier) which, if set,
would add âSome debug information missingâ message at the beginning of
the procfs file. In my opinion CMA succeeding is more important than
having correct debug information.

Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, MichaÅ âmina86â Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +--<mpn@xxxxxxxxxx>--<xmpp:mina86@xxxxxxxxxx>--ooO--(_)--Ooo--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at