Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 11:08 -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> writes: >> > On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> >> Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > This patch reduces the kernel size by removing error messages >> >> > that duplicate >> >> > the normal OOM message. >> >> > A simplified version of the semantic patch that finds this problem is as >> >> > follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr) >> >> This patch removes useful warnings about what allocation failed. The >> >> messages removed are NOT duplicate! >> > Is it really the case that the information can't be reconstructed from the >> > information generated by kmalloc on failure? To my understanding there is >> > a stack trace, and from scanning through the changes I see only one change >> > per function, so perhaps the stack trace already makes it clear where the >> > problem occurred? >> It may be possible to backtrack, but this change just makes it harder. >> There are tons of real issues to fix in this driver, this patch just >> increases the risk of patch conflicts for no real gain. > > Making the allocation less likely to fail for > low memory systems is a gain. > > The allocation failures themselves are low > likelihood events. Determining which specific > memory allocation failure occurred has near > nil value. Joe, That is bologna, knowing which allocation failed has a lot of value, it allows the developer to go back and look at the allocation sizes, parameters applied etc. This is a classic case of blindly applied script 'fixes' causing more harm than good. Jes _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
