On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:29:43AM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ SF Markus Elfring [06/10/17 17:12 +0200]:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 16:27:26 +0200
> >
> > Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function.
> >
> > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/module.c | 4 +---
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
> > index de66ec825992..07ef44767245 100644
> > --- a/kernel/module.c
> > +++ b/kernel/module.c
> > @@ -837,10 +837,8 @@ static int add_module_usage(struct module *a, struct module *b)
> >
> > pr_debug("Allocating new usage for %s.\n", a->name);
> > use = kmalloc(sizeof(*use), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > - if (!use) {
> > - pr_warn("%s: out of memory loading\n", a->name);
> > + if (!use)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > - }
>
> IMO this is removing useful information. Although stack traces are
> generated on alloc failures, the extra print also tells us which
> module we were trying to load at the time the memory allocation
> failed.
This is a small allocation so it can't fail in current kernels. I can't
imagine a situation where this could fail and it wasn't dead easy to
debug. Most modules are loaded at boot so it's not likely to fail, but
if it did, it would be easy to reproduce. If it's not loaded at boot
it's probably really easy to tell which module we're loading.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
