Re: [PATCH V2] clk: zynq: do not allow kmalloc failure

[Nicholas Mc Guire]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:45:23PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Nicholas Mc Guire (2018-11-21 04:28:30)
> > The kmalloc here is small (< 16 bytes) and occurs during initialization
> > during system startup here (can not be built as module) thus if this
> > kmalloc failed it is an indication of something more serious going on
> > and it is fine to hang the system here rather than cause some harder
> > to understand error by dereferencing NULL.
> > 
> > Explicitly checking would not make that much sense here as the only
> > possible reaction would be would BUG() here anyway.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: 0ee52b157b8e ("clk: zynq: Add clock controller driver")
> > Acked-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
> Nak. We don't have any __GFP_NOFAIL in drivers/clk and I don't see a
> reason why we would want it here either. Just handle the failure, or
> don't care if this is so critical to system boot.
>
It was not motivated by the criticality but by the low probability
and cluttering the code for this case did not seem good to me.
Effectively handling it here means BUG() - so more or less
the same result that hanging it on __GFP_NOFAIL if allocation
was not possible would cause.

Not clear what the objection to __GFP_NOFAIL here is - my understanding
was that it is intended precisely for cases like this - but
I´ll send a V2 handling it with BUG_ON(!clk_name) if that is prefered.


thx!
hofrat