On 2023/9/6 15:02, Leo Yan wrote: > Hi Shuai, > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 11:27:38AM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote: > > [...] > >>>>> + /* Can't allocate more than MAX_ORDER */ >>>> >>>> The comment is confused. I'd like to refine it as: >>>> >>>> /* >>>> * kcalloc_node() is unable to allocate buffer if the size is larger >>>> * than: PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER; directly bail out in this case. >>>> */ >>> >>> Hi, Leo, >>> >>> Thank you for your quick feedback. The comment is simplified from Peter's reply in v2 >>> version. Your refined comment is more detailed and it makes sense to me, I would like >>> to adopt it if @Peter has no other opinions. >>> >>>> To be honest, I am not sure if perf core maintainers like this kind >>>> thing or not. Please seek their opinion before you move forward. >>>> >>> >>> and hi, all perf core maintainers, >>> >>> I have not received explicit objection from perf core maintainers @Peter or @James so >>> I moved forward to address their comments. It's fine to me to wait for more opinions from >>> perf core maintainers. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Shuai >>> >> >> Hi, Leo, and all folks, >> >> Any more comments? Should I move forward to send a new patch? > > I am afraid I cannot give a reliable suggestion. > > Anyway, I personally think the returned error value in this patch is > better than the kernel oops since the kernel oops is a bit scary for > tool's users ;) Another reason is the perf core layer should report > error earlier rather than relying on the page buddy allocation layer > to detect the memory allocation failure, which is easier for both > developers and users to understand the failure. > > IMHO, a good practice is to respin a new patch set and send out for > review. Good luck! > Hi, Leo, Thanks for valuable comments. I will send a new patch set. Thank you. Best Regards, Shuai
