On (07/12/15 23:33), Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:47:32AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > Yes, but the main difference here is that it seems that shrinker users > > don't tend to treat shrinker registration failures as fatal errors and > > just continue with shrinker functionality disabled. And it makes sense. > > > > (copy paste from https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/9/751) > > > > I hearily disagree. It's not any less critical than other failures. Why? In some sense, shrinker callbacks are just a way to be nice. No one writes a driver just to be able to handle shrinker calls. An ability to react to those calls is just additional option; it does not directly affect or limit driver's functionality (at least, it really should not). > The right way forward is to handle register failure properly. In other words, to (a) keep a flag to signify that register was not successful or (b) look at ->shrinker.list.next or ->nr_deferred or (c) treat register failures as critical errors. (I sort of disagree with you here). -ss -- 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>