On Fri 15-12-17 12:57:35, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:36:18 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So do we care and I will resend the patch in that case or I just drop > > > > this from my patch queue? > > > > > > Well.. I still think that silently accepting bad input would be bad > > > practice. If we can just delete the assertion and have such a caller > > > reliably blow up later on then that's good enough. > > > > The point is that if the caller checks for the failed allocation then > > the result is a memory leak. > > That's if page_address(highmem page) returns NULL. I'm not sure what > it returns, really - so many different implementations across so many > different architectures. I am not sure I follow. We only do care for HIGHMEM, right? And that one returns NULL unless the high mem page is not kmaped. > Oh well, it would have been nice to remove that VM_BUG_ON(). Why not > just leave the code as it is now? BUGing on a bogus usage is not popular anymore. Also checking for something nobody actually does is a bit pointless. I will not insist though. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>
