On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Dave Jones wrote:
> Decoding these flags by hand in oom reports is tedious,
> and error-prone.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff -durpN '--exclude-from=/home/davej/.exclude' -u src/git-trees/kernel/linux/include/linux/gfp.h linux-dj/include/linux/gfp.h
> --- linux/include/linux/gfp.h 2012-01-11 16:54:21.736395499 -0500
> +++ linux-dj/include/linux/gfp.h 2012-03-06 13:17:37.294692113 -0500
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> struct vm_area_struct;
>
> /* Plain integer GFP bitmasks. Do not use this directly. */
> +/* Update mm/oom_kill.c gfp_flag_texts when adding to/changing this list */
> #define ___GFP_DMA 0x01u
> #define ___GFP_HIGHMEM 0x02u
> #define ___GFP_DMA32 0x04u
> diff -durpN '--exclude-from=/home/davej/.exclude' -u src/git-trees/kernel/linux/mm/oom_kill.c linux-dj/mm/oom_kill.c
> --- linux/mm/oom_kill.c 2012-01-17 17:54:14.541881964 -0500
> +++ linux-dj/mm/oom_kill.c 2012-03-06 13:17:44.071680535 -0500
> @@ -416,13 +416,40 @@ static void dump_tasks(const struct mem_
> }
> }
>
> +static unsigned char *gfp_flag_texts[32] = {
> + "DMA", "HIGHMEM", "DMA32", "MOVABLE",
> + "WAIT", "HIGH", "IO", "FS",
> + "COLD", "NOWARN", "REPEAT", "NOFAIL",
> + "NORETRY", NULL, "COMP", "ZERO",
> + "NOMEMALLOC", "HARDWALL", "THISNODE", "RECLAIMABLE",
> + NULL, "NOTRACK", "NO_KSWAPD", "OTHER_NODE",
> +};
Hmm, there are 24 entries in this list, yet you allocate an array of size
32 - why?
Shouldn't this just be 'static unsigned char *gfp_flag_texts[] = {...}'
and let the compiler worry about the size? Or am I overlooking something
obvious?
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>