Re: [PATCH TRIVIAL] mm: Fix build warning in kmem_cache_create()

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Well, even SLUB checks for !name in mainline so that's definitely
> worth including unconditionally. Furthermore, the size related checks
> certainly make sense and I don't see any harm in having them as well.

There is a WARN_ON() there and then it returns NULL!!! Crazy. Causes a
NULL pointer dereference later in the caller?

> As for "in_interrupt()", I really don't see the point in keeping that
> around. We could push it down to mm/slab.c in "__kmem_cache_create()"
> if we wanted to.

Ok we could do that but I guess we are in the discussion of how much
checking should be done for a production kernel.

I think these checks are way out of hand. We cannot afford to
consistently check parameters to all kernel functions in production. We
will only do these checks in a select manner if these values could
result in serious difficult to debug problems. The checks in slab look
like debugging code that someone needed for a specific debugging scenario.

I can understand that we would keep that in for development but not for
production. Maybe I am a bit biased but my prod kernels need to have
minimal memory footprint due to excessive code size causing regressions.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/