On Friday, 9 March 2007 00:21, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 00:15 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > That's a no-no. ATOMIC alocations can fail, and no, WARN_ON is not > > enough. It is not a bug, they just fail. > > But like I said in my post, there's no way we can disable suspend to > disk when they do, right now anyway. Also, this can't be called any > later than a late initcall or such since it's __init, and thus there > shouldn't be memory pressure yet that would cause this to fail. Exactly. If an atomic allocation fails at this stage, there is a bug IMHO (although not necessarily in our code). Still, the patch is not sufficient, so that's just a theoretical thing. > In any case, I'd be much happier with having a "disable suspend" > variable so we could print a big warning and set that flag. Well, I think that if we can't get so little memory at this early stage, the kernel will have much more trouble anyway. ;-) Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
