[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [1/3] mfd/omap-usb-tll: Delete two error messages for a failed memory allocation in usbtll_omap_probe()
>>>> @@ -258,7 +256,6 @@ static int usbtll_omap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> if (!tll->ch_clk) {
>>>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> - dev_err(dev, "Couldn't allocate memory for channel clocks\n");
>>> I'd either leave this one, just to know which allocation failed or better use
>>> something like this …
>> Are you aware on the structure for a Linux allocation failure report?
> Just created one (not OMAP and not this driver, but that does not matter now):

Thanks for your example.

> ---[ end trace 3c79eadf2363e939 ]---
> max9867: probe of 1-0018 failed with error -12
> driver was instructed to alloc insane number of bytes using devm_kzalloc in
> max9867_i2c_probe.
> Now, if probe function calls devm_kzalloc two times and one of them fails,
> you cannot easily say which one without looking at assembly listing.

Will this situation change with any other implementation for such backtraces?

> Or did I misunderstand your question?

No. - It seems that we have found a “common wavelength”.

Would it become acceptable to move the mentioned memory allocation into
an additional function implementation so that you could see a difference
from the function call stack dump already?


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-15 17:22    [W:0.059 / U:2.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site