On 20/01/18 14:36, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:30:17 +0100
Omit extra messages for a memory allocation failure in these functions.
Why?
It's your job as patch author to convince reviewers and maintainers why
your change is a good thing and they should spend their time looking at
it, much less consider merging it. This may as well be "delete some
stuff because I feel like it".
Do bear in mind the nature of these drivers; Arm SMMUs are not something
you find in microcontrollers. On systems using these drivers, it will
make no difference whatsoever to anyone if the many-megabyte kernel
image is 47 bytes (or whatever) smaller.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
I think I'm going to have to start treating mention of Coccinelle as a
potential disclaimer saying "I haven't attempted to understand the code
I'm changing" :(
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 9 +++------
drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 9 +++------
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
index f122071688fd..5c2a7103d494 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
@@ -2134,10 +2134,8 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_l1_strtab(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
void *strtab = smmu->strtab_cfg.strtab;
cfg->l1_desc = devm_kzalloc(smmu->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!cfg->l1_desc) {
- dev_err(smmu->dev, "failed to allocate l1 stream table desc\n");
OK, I'll stop playing *completely* dumb; I do know you would get a splat
if kmalloc() ever did fail. But what you're removing isn't
printk("failed to allocate memory\n"), it's a message which says exactly
what allocation failed *for which device*. Can you clarify how I'm going
to diagnose this particular problem from the generic splat when all I
have is en email from a customer with a dmesg dump?
+ if (!cfg->l1_desc)
return -ENOMEM;
- }
for (i = 0; i < cfg->num_l1_ents; ++i) {
arm_smmu_write_strtab_l1_desc(strtab, &cfg->l1_desc[i]);
@@ -2828,10 +2826,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
bool bypass;
smmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!smmu) {
- dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate arm_smmu_device\n");
+ if (!smmu)
return -ENOMEM;
- }
+
smmu->dev = dev;
if (dev->of_node) {
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
index 78d4c6b8f1ba..a4da4a870a2e 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
@@ -2048,10 +2048,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
int num_irqs, i, err;
smmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!smmu) {
- dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate arm_smmu_device\n");
+ if (!smmu)
return -ENOMEM;
- }
+
smmu->dev = dev;
if (dev->of_node)
@@ -2084,10 +2083,8 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
smmu->irqs = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu->irqs) * num_irqs,
GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!smmu->irqs) {
- dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate %d irqs\n", num_irqs);
This more than any other is removing potentially useful information:
"failed to allocate 37890756 irqs", for instance, would indicate a bug
which is very much *not* an out-of-memory condition.
Robin.
+ if (!smmu->irqs)
return -ENOMEM;
- }
for (i = 0; i < num_irqs; ++i) {
int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
--
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
