On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 14:08 -0500, Christoph Lameter (Open Source) wrote: > 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. Thanks for the feedback. I will send v3 patch with the changes we discussed. -- Shuah -- 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>