On 9/14/2013 7:45 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote: > Changelog: > *v2 -> v3: revert commit 46c001a2 directly > > Don't warning twice in __vmalloc_area_node and __vmalloc_node_range if > __vmalloc_area_node allocation failure. This patch revert commit 46c001a2 > (mm/vmalloc.c: emit the failure message before return). > > Reviewed-by: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > index d78d117..e3ec8b4 100644 > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > @@ -1635,7 +1635,7 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align, > > addr = __vmalloc_area_node(area, gfp_mask, prot, node, caller); > if (!addr) > - goto fail; > + return NULL; This is not right fix. Now we have following call stack. __vmalloc_node __vmalloc_node_range __vmalloc_node Even if we remove a warning of __vmalloc_node_range, we still be able to see double warning because we call __vmalloc_node recursively. I haven't catch your point why twice warning is unacceptable though. -- 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>