On 5/25/21 1:33 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:36:52PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> > Most callers of validate_slab_cache don't care about the return value >> > except when the validate sysfs file is written. Should a simply >> > informational message be displayed for -ENOMEM in case a writer to >> > validate fails and it's not obvious it was because of an allocation >> > failure? >> >> he other callers are all in the effectively dead resiliency_test() code, which >> has meanwhile been replaced in mmotm by kunit tests meanwhile. But it's true >> those don't check the results either for now. >> > > Ok. > >> > It's a fairly minor concern so whether you add a message or not >> >> I think I'll rather fix up the tests. Or do you mean that -ENOMEM for a sysfs >> write is also not enough and there should be a dmesg explanation for that case? >> > > I mean the -ENOMEM for a sysfs write. While it's very unlikely, it might > would explain an unexpected write failure. On second thought, a failed GFP_KERNEL allocation will already generate a prominent warning, so an extra message looks arbitrary.
