From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f197.google.com (mail-pf0-f197.google.com [209.85.192.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C47C6B0005 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 10:05:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f197.google.com with SMTP id d4-v6so2817268pfn.9 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 07:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com. [192.55.52.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q65-v6si2296008pga.283.2018.06.28.07.05.19 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Jun 2018 07:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] mm/sparse: Optimize memmap allocation during sparse_init() References: <20180628062857.29658-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20180628062857.29658-5-bhe@redhat.com> <20180628120937.GC12956@techadventures.net> From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <3e014554-abf9-8a18-e890-be43d48d5eb0@intel.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 07:05:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Pavel Tatashin , osalvador@techadventures.net Cc: bhe@redhat.com, LKML , Andrew Morton , pagupta@redhat.com, Linux Memory Management List , kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com On 06/28/2018 05:12 AM, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > You did not, this is basically a safety check. A BUG_ON() would be > better here. As, this something that should really not happening, and > would mean a bug in the current project. Is this at a point in boot where a BUG_ON() generally produces useful output, or will it just produce and early-boot silent hang with no console output?