On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:51 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> > The kmalloc() in bio_integrity_prep() is failable, so remove __GFP_NOFAIL >> > from its mask. >> > >> > Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > fs/bio-integrity.c | 2 +- >> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/fs/bio-integrity.c b/fs/bio-integrity.c >> > --- a/fs/bio-integrity.c >> > +++ b/fs/bio-integrity.c >> > @@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ int bio_integrity_prep(struct bio *bio) >> > >> > /* Allocate kernel buffer for protection data */ >> > len = sectors * blk_integrity_tuple_size(bi); >> > - buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_NOIO | __GFP_NOFAIL | q->bounce_gfp); >> > + buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_NOIO | q->bounce_gfp); >> > if (unlikely(buf == NULL)) { >> > printk(KERN_ERR "could not allocate integrity buffer\n"); >> > return -EIO; >> >> ^^^ what? > > Right, I'm not sure why that decision was made, but it looks like it can > be changed over to -ENOMEM without harming anything. I'm concerned that > the printk will spam the kernel log endlessly, though, if we're really oom > and GFP_NOIO has no hope of freeing memory. This code has never been > active, so I'd like to wait for some feedback from Al and Jens (now with a > corrected email address, jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx bounced) to see if we want > to return -ENOMEM, if the printk is really necessary, and if it would be > better to just convert this to a loop with a congestion_wait() instead of > returning from bio_integrity_prep(). Btw, you probably want __GFP_NOWARN here if you expect the allocation to fail under normal conditions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html