On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:57:55PM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > David Teigland writes: > >> but why can't you return NULL here on failure like you do for > >> find_lock_page()? > > > >because create is set > > Yes, but looking at (some of the) top-level callers, there's no real reason > why create must not fail. Am I missing something here? I'll trace the callers back farther and see about dealing with errors. > >> gfs2-02.patch:+ RETRY_MALLOC(bd = kmem_cache_alloc(gfs2_bufdata_cachep, > > It is passed to the page allocator just like with kmalloc() which uses > __cache_alloc() too. Yes, I read it wrongly, looks like NOFAIL should work fine. I think we can get rid of the RETRY macro entirely. Thanks, Dave -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
