From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f70.google.com (mail-wm0-f70.google.com [74.125.82.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8F06B0069 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:57:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f70.google.com with SMTP id n126so4403533wma.7 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:57:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org. [140.211.169.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o70si5343795wmi.78.2017.12.15.12.57.38 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:57:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:57:35 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] mm/page_alloc: fix comment is __get_free_pages Message-Id: <20171215125735.1d74c7a04c05d91f27ffdbd7@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20171215093618.GV16951@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1511780964-64864-1-git-send-email-chenjiankang1@huawei.com> <20171127113341.ldx32qvexqe2224d@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171129160446.jluzpv3n6mjc3fwv@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171129134159.c9100ea6dacad870d69929b7@linux-foundation.org> <20171130065335.zno7peunnl2zpozq@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171130131706.0550cd28ce47aaa976f7db2a@linux-foundation.org> <20171201072414.3kc3pbvdbqbxhnfx@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171201111845.iyoua7hhjodpuvoy@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171214140608.GQ16951@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171214123309.bdee142c82809f4c4ff3ce5b@linux-foundation.org> <20171215093618.GV16951@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: JianKang Chen , mgorman@techsingularity.net, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xieyisheng1@huawei.com, guohanjun@huawei.com, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:36:18 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > So do we care and I will resend the patch in that case or I just drop > > > this from my patch queue? > > > > Well.. I still think that silently accepting bad input would be bad > > practice. If we can just delete the assertion and have such a caller > > reliably blow up later on then that's good enough. > > The point is that if the caller checks for the failed allocation then > the result is a memory leak. That's if page_address(highmem page) returns NULL. I'm not sure what it returns, really - so many different implementations across so many different architectures. Oh well, it would have been nice to remove that VM_BUG_ON(). Why not just leave the code as it is now? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org