On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:02:39PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
>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.
Thank you for your comments David, please ignore the patch.
--
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>