在 2022/6/6 10:08, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:34:13AM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
On 2022/6/5 19:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 11:55:55AM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
It will result in null pointer access if shmem_init_inodecache fail,
so check return value of shmem_init_inodecache
You ignored my suggestion from v1. Here, let me write it out for you.
Hi Matthew,
I didn't ignore your suggestion, some explanation is needed, sorry for
that.
In V1, Kefeng point:
"kmem_cache_create return a pointer to the cache on success, NULL on
failure,
so error = -ENOMEM; is right :)"
so, I look some similar code such as init_inodecache in kinds of file
system, they all
return -ENOMEM on failure, so is it OK to return -ENOMEM on failure :)
Besides, kmem_cache_create return NULL on failure, maybe returning error
code
on failure is more proper, but it is another job.
I literally wrote out what I think you should do instead. Stop arguing.
+static int shmem_init_inodecache(void)
{
shmem_inode_cachep = kmem_cache_create("shmem_inode_cache",
sizeof(struct shmem_inode_info),
0, SLAB_PANIC|SLAB_ACCOUNT, shmem_init_inode);
+ if (!shmem_inode_cachep)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ return 0;
}
...
+ error = shmem_init_inodecache();
+ if (error)
+ goto out2;
Oh, I misunderstood what you said, feel so sorry.
I will send a new version.
Thanks.
.
.
