Hello, Serge.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:23:22PM -0600, serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> @@ -164,18 +286,39 @@ void pr_cont_kernfs_name(struct kernfs_node *kn)
> void pr_cont_kernfs_path(struct kernfs_node *kn)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> - char *p;
> + char *p = NULL;
> + int sz1, sz2;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&kernfs_rename_lock, flags);
>
> - p = kernfs_path_locked(kn, kernfs_pr_cont_buf,
> - sizeof(kernfs_pr_cont_buf));
> - if (p)
> - pr_cont("%s", p);
> - else
> - pr_cont("<name too long>");
> + sz1 = kernfs_path_from_node_locked(kn, NULL, kernfs_pr_cont_buf,
> + sizeof(kernfs_pr_cont_buf));
> + if (sz1 < 0) {
> + pr_cont("(error)");
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (sz1 < sizeof(kernfs_pr_cont_buf)) {
> + pr_cont("%s", kernfs_pr_cont_buf);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + p = kmalloc(sz1 + 1, GFP_NOFS);
We can't do GFP_NOFS allocation while holding a spinlock and we don't
want to do atomic allocation here either. I think it'd be best to
keep using the static buffer.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
