On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mar 02, 2009 11:38 +0530, Manish Katiyar wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > While going through jbd code, I was wondering why do we need to check
>> > new_transaction for NULL, if we are passing __GFP_NOFAIL ?
>> > Last code change around this code was when Ted converted kmalloc to
>> > kzalloc, but since he also didn't remove it I am guessing there would
>> > be some good reason for it. Can someone enlighten me ?
>>
>> I didn't receive any response to this. So probably removing the NULL
>> check is harmless. Or should I remove the __GFP_NOFAIL flag and keep
>> the error handling ?
>
> Neither, please. The NULL check is harmless, and static code checkers
> will complain about k[zm]alloc() without a corresponding NULL check.
Ohh... Ok.. Thanks Andreas, I didn't think about static code checkers.
Please ignore the sent patch.
Thanks -
Manish
> Branch prediction will get this right, so the overhead is miniscule.
>
>> > start_this_handle() {
>> > ..........
>> > ..........
>> > new_transaction = kzalloc(sizeof(*new_transaction),
>> > GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL);
>> > if (!new_transaction) {
>> > ret = -ENOMEM;
>> > goto out;
>> > }
>> > ..........
>> > }
>
> Cheers, Andreas
> --
> Andreas Dilger
> Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
> Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
