On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 11:30, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 11:21:21AM -0700, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > But I am not sure if we really don't want to issue the fault injection > > stack in this case. It's not a WARNING, it's merely an information > > message. It looks useful in all cases, even with GFP_NOWARN. Why > > should it be suppressed? > > I think it is fine to suppress it for *this call* but the bug turns it > off forever more Is it just "fine", or "good"? I agree it's probably "fine", but wouldn't it be better to not suppress it? The message fault injection prints is not a warning, and the allocation failed due to fault injection. That may trigger subsequent bugs just as any other case of fault injection. Why don't we want to see the info message in this particular case? NOWARN looks orthogonal to this, it's about normal slab allocation failures.
