On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Shuah Khan wrote: > Moving these checks into kmem_cache_sanity_check() would mean return > path handling will change. The first block of sanity checks for name, > and size etc. are done before holding the slab_mutex and the second > block that checks the slab lists is done after holding the mutex. > Depending on which one fails, return handling is going to be different > in that if second block fails, mutex needs to be unlocked and when the > first block fails, there is no need to do that. Nothing that is too > complex to solve, just something that needs to be handled. Right. The taking of the mutex etc is not depending on the parameters at all. So its possible. Its rather simple. > Comments, thoughts on > > 1. just remove size from kmem_cache_sanity_check() parameters > or > 2. move first block sanity checks into kmem_cache_sanity_check() > > Personally I prefer the first option to avoid complexity in return path > handling. Would like to hear what others think. We already have to deal with the return path handling for other failure cases. -- 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>