On 12/19/2013 12:17 PM, Vasily Averin wrote: > On 12/18/2013 05:16 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote: >> --- a/mm/slab_common.c >> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c >> @@ -176,8 +176,9 @@ kmem_cache_create_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const char *name, size_t size, >> get_online_cpus(); >> mutex_lock(&slab_mutex); >> >> - if (!kmem_cache_sanity_check(memcg, name, size) == 0) >> - goto out_locked; >> + err = kmem_cache_sanity_check(memcg, name, size); >> + if (err) >> + goto out_unlock; >> >> /* >> * Some allocators will constraint the set of valid flags to a subset > Theoretically in future kmem_cache_sanity_check() can return positive value. > Probably it's better to check (err < 0) in caller ? Hmm, why? What information could positive retval carry here? We have plenty of places throughout the code where we check for (err), not (err<0), simply because it looks clearer, e.g. look at __kmem_cache_create() calls. If it returns a positive value one day, we will have to parse every place where it's called. Anyway, if someone wants to change a function behavior, he must check every place where this function is called and fix them accordingly. Thanks. -- 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>