On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:17:17AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > Now memcg in unmap_and_move checks BUG_ON of charge. > But mem_cgroup_prepare_migration returns either 0 or -ENOMEM. > If it returns -ENOMEM, it jumps out unlock without the check. > If it returns 0, it can pass BUG_ON. So it's meaningless. > Let's remove it. > > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/migrate.c | 1 - > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c > index eb083a6..2abc9c9 100644 > --- a/mm/migrate.c > +++ b/mm/migrate.c > @@ -683,7 +683,6 @@ static int unmap_and_move(new_page_t get_new_page, unsigned long private, > rc = -ENOMEM; > goto unlock; > } > - BUG_ON(charge); You remove this assertion of the mem_cgroup_prepare_migration() return value but only add a comment about the expectations in the next patch. Could you write a full-blown kerneldoc on mem_cgroup_prepare_migration and remove this BUG_ON() in the same patch? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>