On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:50:37AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > + if (!vma) {
> > > > + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> > > > + if (!init_nodemask_of_mempolicy(nodes_allowed)) {
> > > > + NODEMASK_FREE(nodes_allowed);
> > > > + nodes_allowed = &node_states[N_MEMORY];
> > > > + }
> > > > + } else if (nodes_allowed) {
> > The check is here.
>
> It's below a possible usage of nodes_allowed as an argument of
> init_nodemask_of_mempolicy(mask). Which does
Sorry, I missed that.
>
> if (!(mask && current->mempolicy))
> return false;
>
> which itself looks like an error at first sight :)
Yes. I agree.
>
> > Do we really need to re-arrange the code here for the explicit check? :)
>
> We don't need it *now* to be correct, but I still find it fragile. Also it
> mixes up the semantic of NULL as a conscious "default" value, and NULL as
> a side-effect of memory allocation failure. Nothing good can come from that
> in the long term :)
Okay, I think we do have the need to do the NULL check for
@nodes_allowed. :)
Thanks
Huang Shijie
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>