Hi KOSAKI, On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:15:29PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >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; The goto fail is introduced by commit (mm/vmalloc.c: emit the failure message before return), and the commit author ignore there has already have warning in __vmalloc_area_node. http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=137818671125209&w=2 > >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. Different size allocation failure in your example actually. > >I haven't catch your point why twice warning is unacceptable though. > > I think I have already answer your question. Regards, Wanpeng Li > > > > > > -- 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>