[lkml]   [2014]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] mm: cma: introduce /proc/cmainfo
>> On Fri, Dec 26 2014, "Stefan I. Strogin" <> wrote:
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + pr_warn("%s(): cma_buffer_list_add() returned %d\n",
>>> + __func__, ret);
>>> + cma_release(cma, page, count);
>>> + page = NULL;

> On 12/26/2014 07:02 PM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> Harsh, but ok, if you want.

On Mon, Dec 29 2014, Stefan Strogin wrote:
> Excuse me, maybe you could suggest how to make a nicer fallback?
> Or sure OK?

I would leave the allocation succeed and print warning that the debug
information is invalid. You could have a “dirty” flag which is set if
that happens (or on a partial release discussed earlier) which, if set,
would add “Some debug information missing” message at the beginning of
the procfs file. In my opinion CMA succeeding is more important than
having correct debug information.

Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +--<>--<>--ooO--(_)--Ooo--

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-12-29 18:41    [W:0.071 / U:1.880 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site