From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: [1/3] mfd/omap-usb-tll: Delete two error messages for a failed memory allocation in usbtll_omap_probe() Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:06:20 +0100 Message-ID: References: <7719b4e7-1081-6fa4-6f14-f45cf062482d@users.sourceforge.net> <20180115134101.GA6711@lenoch> <1ebb5ac5-aa4d-7c19-94db-210b518d562f@users.sourceforge.net> <20180115160522.GA2672@lenoch> <11eaf92d-3928-531f-35e8-fb5a60ff03e3@users.sourceforge.net> <20180115163543.GA10657@lenoch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180115163543.GA10657@lenoch> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ladislav Michl , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Cc: Lee Jones , Tony Lindgren , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org >>> 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? > > How much that situation changes depends mainly on that very person who is > sending bugreport and his/her ability and willigness to eventually change > said implementation. Have you got any more influence on the selection? Which variant was applied for your example? > In the other words your question (presumably) expects a world of > ideal backtraces, which is (so far) rarely the case. I assume that further software evolution will matter. Does an article like “The ORCs are coming” (by Jonathan Corbet from 2017-07-20) point information out which is also useful for this issue here? https://lwn.net/Articles/728339/ > Anyway, if we agree to change the way we allocate driver data here, > the issue this debate is about will no longer exist. Does your update suggestion contain still any additional error messages for memory allocation failures? Regards, Markus