On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:58:03 +0200, Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 15:16 +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
+unsigned long alloc_contig_freed_pages(unsigned long start, unsigned
long end,
+ gfp_t flag)
+{
+ unsigned long pfn = start, count;
+ struct page *page;
+ struct zone *zone;
+ int order;
+
+ VM_BUG_ON(!pfn_valid(start));
This seems kinda mean. Could we return an error? I understand that
this is largely going to be an early-boot thing, but surely trying to
punt on crappy input beats a full-on BUG().
Actually, I would have to check but I think that the usage of this function
(in this patchset) is that the caller expects the function to succeed. It
is
quite a low-level function so before running it a lot of preparation is
needed
and the caller must make sure that several conditions are met. I don't
really
see advantage of returning a value rather then BUG()ing.
Also, CMA does not call this function at boot time.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +-----<email/xmpp: mnazarewicz@xxxxxxxxxx>-----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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>