On 8/25/15 19:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> OK, I guess I understand what you mean. You are certainly right that a
> partial initialization for the failure case is not nice in general. I
> was just objecting that the callers are supposed to free the vma in
> the failure case so any partial initialization doesn't matter in this
> particular case.
>
> Your patch would be more sensible if the failure case was more
> likely. But this function is used for special mappings (vdso, temporary
> vdso stack) which are created early in the process life time so both
> failure paths are highly unlikely. If this was a part of a larger
> changes where the function would be used elsewhere I wouldn't object at
> all.
>
OK.
> The reason I am skeptical about such changes in general is that
> the effect is very marginal while it increases chances of the code
> conflicts.
>
> But as I've said, if others feel this is worthwhile I will not object.
>
OK, I can understand.
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang
Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
?韬{.n???檩jg???a?旃???)钋???骅w+h?璀?ｙ/i?⒏??⒎???Щ ??m?? ?)钋???痂?^??觥??ザ?v???O璁?f??i?⒏?