On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 1:21 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/28/22 6:46 PM, Ammar Faizi wrote: > > From: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hi Jens, > > > > This series contains patches that were dropped from my previous thread: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/fio/20220428203954.222165-1-ammarfaizi2@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Plus, I have more patches in this series. This series contains error > > handling fixes, mostly about ENOMEM. There are 8 patches in this > > series. All of them are ENOMEM handling stuff except that patch #4 has > > extra fixes and a bit of refactoring. > > While I agree on good error handling in general, I'm a bit dubious at > malloc() related NULL returns. Have you ever seen malloc() return NULL? > On Linux, or somewhere else? Most systems overcommit themselves to > death, and things will death spiral before you ever get NULL. Yes, you're right. malloc() returns NULL is a very rare case. I don't think fio users will ever see that in general. I have seen malloc() return NULL when a program is in jail (e.g. inside cgroup, or whatever that puts a limit on the memory resource). But obviously, it is not reasonable for fio. Although that's one of my motivations, it's actually not the main one that brought me to do this series. > I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, just naturally skeptical that > there's any real value in making changes like this. I am a bit bothered seeing inconsistent error handling in the codebase. From what I see in the fio codebase today, sometimes we handle ENOMEM cases, sometimes we don't. I want to make it consistent in the hope we can improve the quality of the overall error handling. If you are fine with that, I can send more incremental patches for review in the future to fix those inconsistencies. It may be tiring and progressive work. But I am okay doing that. However, if you NAK this series. I will start fixing other broken things I can find, like in patch #4 for example. And that's fine. -- Ammar Faizi
