On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:39:54 -0500 (CDT) Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, David Rientjes wrote: > > > Why? kset_create_and_add() can fail for a few other reasons other than > > memory constraints and given that this is only done at bootstrap, it > > actually seems like a duplicate name would be a bigger concern than low on > > memory if another init call actually registered it. > > Greg said that the only reason for failure would be out of memory. The kset_create_and_add interface is busted - it should return an ERR_PTR on error, not NULL. This seems to be a common gregkh failing :( It's plausible that out-of-memory is the most common reason for kset_create_and_add() failure, dunno. Jeff, the changelog wasn't a good one - it failed to describe the reasons for the change. What was wrong with ENOSYS and why is ENOMEM more appropriate? If Greg told us that out-of-memory is the only possible reason for the failure then it would be useful to capture the reasoning behind this within this changelog. Also let's describe the effects of this patch. It looks like it's just cosmetic - if kset_create_and_add() fails, the kernel behavior will be the same either way. -- 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>