From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it1-f200.google.com (mail-it1-f200.google.com [209.85.166.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86AC48E01DC for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 14:40:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-it1-f200.google.com with SMTP id p21so6758257itb.8 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:40:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0087.hostedemail.com. [216.40.44.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u13si2636081ior.114.2018.12.14.11.40.49 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:40:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <0192c1984f42ad0a33e4c9aca04df90c97ebf412.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 2/4] mm: separate memory allocation and actual work in alloc_vmap_area() From: Joe Perches Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:40:45 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20181214181322.GC10600@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20181214180720.32040-1-guro@fb.com> <20181214180720.32040-3-guro@fb.com> <20181214181322.GC10600@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox , Roman Gushchin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexey Dobriyan , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Vlastimil Babka , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, Roman Gushchin On Fri, 2018-12-14 at 10:13 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:07:18AM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > +/* > > + * Allocate a region of KVA of the specified size and alignment, within the > > + * vstart and vend. > > + */ > > +static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size, > > + unsigned long align, > > + unsigned long vstart, > > + unsigned long vend, > > + int node, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > +{ > > + struct vmap_area *va; > > + int ret; > > + > > + va = kmalloc_node(sizeof(struct vmap_area), > > + gfp_mask & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK, node); > > + if (unlikely(!va)) > > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > + > > + ret = init_vmap_area(va, size, align, vstart, vend, node, gfp_mask); > > + if (ret) { > > + kfree(va); > > + return ERR_PTR(ret); > > + } > > + > > + return va; > > } > > > > + > > Another spurious blank line? I don't think so. I think it is the better style to separate the error return from the normal return. > With these two fixed, > Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox >