On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:53:13AM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > On 4/11/2018 3:32 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: > > i40iw_add_mqh_4() is never called in atomic context, because it > > calls rtnl_lock() that can sleep. > > > > Despite never getting called from atomic context, > > i40iw_add_mqh_4() calls kzalloc() with GFP_ATOMIC, > > which does not sleep for allocation. > > GFP_ATOMIC is not necessary and can be replaced with GFP_KERNEL, > > which can sleep and improve the possibility of sucessful allocation. > > Just a general comment. I don't know that this is the greatest idea. I can > imagine instances where sleeping is OK as far as how the code is written, > but for performance reasons you would rather fail than sleep. > > As to whether that is the case here I'll let the i40iw folks comment. > In this case, the changes Jia made look safe and not in the perf. path. Thanks! > > This is found by a static analysis tool named DCNS written by myself. > > And I also manually check it. > You should probably post a pointer to your tool. > > -Denny -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
