Re: [Devel] [PATCH 1/6] slab: cleanup kmem_cache_create_memcg()

[Vladimir Davydov]

On 12/19/2013 12:17 PM, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 05:16 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>> @@ -176,8 +176,9 @@ kmem_cache_create_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const char *name, size_t size,
>>  	get_online_cpus();
>>  	mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
>>  
>> -	if (!kmem_cache_sanity_check(memcg, name, size) == 0)
>> -		goto out_locked;
>> +	err = kmem_cache_sanity_check(memcg, name, size);
>> +	if (err)
>> +		goto out_unlock;
>>  
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Some allocators will constraint the set of valid flags to a subset
> Theoretically in future kmem_cache_sanity_check() can return positive value.
> Probably it's better to check (err < 0) in caller ?

Hmm, why? What information could positive retval carry here? We have
plenty of places throughout the code where we check for (err), not
(err<0), simply because it looks clearer, e.g. look at
__kmem_cache_create() calls. If it returns a positive value one day, we
will have to parse every place where it's called. Anyway, if someone
wants to change a function behavior, he must check every place where
this function is called and fix them accordingly.

Thanks.
--
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/