On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> index c4b85d0..79a0f33 100644
> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> @@ -696,7 +696,7 @@ static struct inode *hugetlbfs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> p = kmem_cache_alloc(hugetlbfs_inode_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (unlikely(!p)) {
> hugetlbfs_inc_free_inodes(sbinfo);
> - return NULL;
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> }
> return &p->vfs_inode;
> }
So now you've removed Gavin Shan who already told you that it was correct
as written and propose yet another bogus patch which will break. This
isn't professional.
alloc_inode() tests for a NULL return value, not for PTR_ERR(), so you
would be introducing a bug if this patch were merged. It's completely
correct the way it's written.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>